Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
June 28, 2016, 06:24:26 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
95565 Posts in 2314 Topics by 1081 Members
Latest Member: Martel
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 113
3551  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of the Republicans on: July 12, 2011, 01:53:18 PM
I don't think they are winning over any independents or any new people to the Republican party. And they are certainly not winning the confidence of the tea partiers or stricter conservatives.  Of course I am an armchair expert. cheesy
3552  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / marijuana on: July 12, 2011, 01:50:07 PM
  The only reason to decriminalize this drug is to take the profit motive out of it. That may be a good reason to make it legal but no other reason I can see is legitimate.  Not to tax it and not for "medicinal" purposes in vast majority of most cases. Medically it is a sham except for maybe those who are otherwise in unusual situations like on chemotherapy or terminally ill.  People who want it legal are mostly hippies, druggies, or those who want to profit from it.  With all the problems facing this country we need to debate over pot?

Personally I agree with the following:

****Obama administration slams medical marijuana
By Liz Goodwin

National Affairs Reporter

PostsEmailRSSBy Liz Goodwin | The Lookout – 20 hrs agotweet48EmailPrint

Medical marijuana in Denver (Ed Andrieski/AP)
The Obama administration's newly released drug control strategy slams states that have legalized medical marijuana, arguing that smoking any drug is unsafe--and that marijuana's medical benefits have yet to be evaluated by the FDA.

"While there may be medical value for some of the individual components of the cannabis plant, the fact remains that smoking marijuana is an inefficient and harmful method for delivering the constituent elements that have or may have medicinal value," the White House's National Drug Control Strategy for 2011 says.

The strongly anti-marijuana report comes on the heels of the Justice Department's decision against reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. As The Los Angeles Times reports, the government took nine years to respond to marijuana advocates' request that they take into account studies that show marijuana has medical benefits and reclassify the drug. At the end of its review, the Justice Department held firm to its earlier decision that marijuana should be classified alongside other dangerous drugs such as heroin. The Americans for Safe Access group is now appealing the decision in federal court, the paper says.

It's unclear what the consequences will be for people involved in the medical marijuana business in the 16 states (and Washington, D.C.) that currently allow it. The report states unequivocally that "outside the context of Federally approved research, the use and distribution of marijuana is prohibited in the United States," and the Justice Department recently suggested in a memo that state-approved marijuana dispensaries and growers could face prosecution.

The report also made a detailed case against legalization or decriminalization of marijuana, an idea that has won the endorsement of a group of ex-global leaders who called the war on drugs a "failure." The report says that while tobacco and alcohol are legalized and taxed, neither provide a "net economic benefit to society," due to health-care expenses and various criminal justice costs, such as drunken driving arrests.

Neil Franklin, the director of a pro-legalization group of former police and other law-enforcement agents called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said in a statement that the anti-marijuana tone of the administration is disappointing.

"It's sad that the drug czar decided to insert a multi-page rant against legalizing and regulating drugs into the National Drug Control Strategy instead of actually doing his job and shifting limited resources to combat the public health problem of drug abuse," Franklin said.****
3553  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Progressives and subversives have absconded the education system on: July 12, 2011, 10:36:35 AM
What is most astounding about all this is all we hear about is how bad our education that so many children know astoundingly NOTHING about the nature and founding of the principals of our country.

They know all about slavery of blacks, the driving of Indians off lands, etc.  Everything is political correctness.

I felt proud of being an American growing up.

Now children are taught to be ashamed of our heritage, our history culture, the legacies, the principals this country was founded on.

I remember in college in the 70's one history professor was rumored to be "communist" in his philosophy as though he was the execption.  Now from what one reads this is at least at the Ivy league schools the *rule*, not the *exception*.

I just cannot believe we have children who don't know who Abraham Lincoln is from a picture or that the US was a colony of Britain.

This is astounding. This is a disgrace.  
3554  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / How can repubs get rid of Boehner? on: July 12, 2011, 09:33:51 AM
Without any doubt the Republicans really should start looking for another House majority leader.
When you see the MSM state something like this:

"Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama" then Republicans should know its time for him to be replaced.  This guy Boehner is absolutely the worst Republican house leader in memory:

***Cantor-Boehner Rivalry, Loafers Hold Up a Debt Deal

By Connor Simpson | The Atlantic Wire – 2 hrs 50 mins agotweet0EmailPrintA long rumored rivalry between the two top Republicans seems to be causing problems at the negotiating table while the president tries to hammer out a debt reduction deal before the August 2 deadline. Speaker of the House John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor are on opposing sides of the idealogical coin when it comes to debt reduction, and sartorial choices, reports the Los Angeles Times' Lisa Mascaro and Kathleen Hennessey.

Related: GOP Intensifies Demands for Votes to Raise the Debt Ceiling

Boehner was praised for his early efforts to strike a major deal with the Obama administration that would trim spending from social programs like Medicare and Social Security, but would also close tax loopholes for upperclass Americans. Cantor has hardly swayed from party lines during the negotiation process, favoring a mid-range deal more popular with the rest of "rank-and-file" Republicans. Mascaro and Hennessey describe Boehner as older, wiser and with an "old school cool." Cantor is young, scrappy and has some, "aspirations to occupy the No. 1 spot someday," meaning Boehner's job as Speaker of the house. Also, apparently, Boehner, "mocks Cantor's Italian loafers."

Related: Debt Talks Stall on Sunday

"If there's a popularity contest right now, Cantor wins it," one aide told the Times. "I don't think Boehner would want to serve in a foxhole anytime with Eric Cantor," said another.
3555  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: July 08, 2011, 10:24:17 AM
Isn't in Kali-fornia there is a bill that would make mandatory gay history in schools.

We have a large percentage of children who cannot tell you what Abraham Lincoln looks like, who do not know the US was originally part of the British empire but we must have gay history in grade school!

Right.  And it wasn't the gays spreading aids it was Ronald Reagan.
3556  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tea Party, Glen Beck and related matters on: July 01, 2011, 02:42:57 PM
"Good riddance.  He was fired"

Not in the too distant future we will all be saying the same for Brock.

He can travel the world and wine and dine with his wife on their dime.
3557  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / "Men & Women" no more on: June 30, 2011, 08:05:41 PM
Forget "boy" or "girl".  It is friends or I guess person.  I don't know if this should be under the gay heading, parenting heading gender heading or under a heading of "crazy':

***No "boys" or "girls" at gender-neutral preschool in Sweden
At Egalia preschool in Stockholm, children are not called "him" and "her," or "boy" and "girl," in an attempt to fight gender stereotypes.
News DeskJune 26, 2011 12:04
Swedish children from a kindergarden wear their obligatory traffic safety vests as they play in a Stockholm park. At the "Egalia" preschool in Sweden, staff refer to the children as "friends" instead of "boys" and "girls," in an attempt to breakdown gender stereotypes for boys and girls. (SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP/Getty Images)A preschool in Sweden wants to eliminate gender bias by referring to children as “friends,” instead of girls and boys, and avoiding gender-specific pronouns such as “him” or “her.”

At the taxpayer-funded “Egalia” preschool in Stockholm, which opened last year for children ages 1-6, boys and girls play together with a toy kitchen, which is located next to the Lego bricks, the Associated Press reports.

They read books featuring gay and lesbian couples, single parents and adopted children, instead of fairy tales such as “Cinderella” or “Snow White,” which are rife with gender stereotypes.

School staff try to avoid masculine and feminine references in their speech, for example by not using the Swedish pronouns “han” or “hon” for him or her, and instead using the genderless word “hen,” which doesn’t formally exist in the Swedish language.

"Society expects girls to be girlie, nice and pretty and boys to be manly, rough and outgoing," teacher Jenny Johnsson told the AP. "Egalia gives them a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be."

A 2010 report by the World Economic Forum on the global gender gap found that Sweden and three other Nordic countries lead the world when it comes to gender equality. Sweden is also considered a pioneer in legalizing gay and lesbian partnerships.

A Canadian couple recently drew international attention for their decision to try and raise a genderless baby by not telling anyone whether their child is a boy or girl.

When Storm was born, the couple from Toronto told friends and family that they had decided not to share the baby’s sex.

“When the baby comes out, even the people who love you the most and know you so intimately, the first question they ask is, ‘Is it a girl or a boy?’” mother Kathy Witterick explained to the Toronto Star. “If you really want to get to know someone, you don’t ask what’s between their legs.”

Storm’s brothers Jazz, 5, and Kio, 2, choose their own clothes and hairstyles. Jazz prefers to wear his hair long and in three braids, and his favorite color is pink.****

3558  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / An awakening on: June 29, 2011, 12:44:47 PM
Are some liberal fellow Jews awakening that they may really have to give up their capatilistic freedom lifestyle if they keep voting for Brock and the rest of the crat party?   Well their not just giving away Israel.  They are giving away this great country too.  Wake up you fools.

***Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012.***

WOW!  Although I will have to see this to believe on election day....

***Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama
By: Ben Smith
June 29, 2011 04:32 AM EDT
David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message)

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy)

Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy.

But the noisy fray after the speech mirrored any number of smaller controversies. Politically hawkish Jews and groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel pounded Obama in news releases. White House surrogates and staffers defended him, as did the plentiful American Jews who have long wanted the White House to lean harder on Israel’s conservative government.

Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Wasserman Schultz and other top Democrats say the storm will pass. (Related: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Jewish voters will stick with Obama)

They point out to anyone who will listen that beyond the difficult personal relationship of Obama and Netanyahu, beyond a tense, stalled peace process, there’s a litany of good news for supporters of Israel: Military cooperation is at an all-time high; Obama has supplied Israel with a key missile defense system; the U.S. boycotted an anti-racism conference seen as anti-Israel; and America is set to spend valuable international political capital beating back a Palestinian independence declaration at the United Nations in September.

The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times.

At the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama professed his love for Israel but then seemed, - to some who were there for his informal talk - to betray a kind of naivete about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: “The biggest enemy” he said, using the same rhetoric he applied to American politics, was “not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.”

At the next year’s AIPAC conference, he again botched the conflict’s code, committing himself to an “undivided Jerusalem” and then walking it back the next day.

Those doubts and gaffes lingered, even for many of the majority who supported him.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Many of Obama’s supporters, then and now, said they were unworried about the political allegiance of Jewish voters. Every four years, they say, Republicans claim to be making inroads with American Jews, and every four years, voters and donors go overwhelmingly for the Democrats, voting on a range of issues that include, but aren’t limited to Israel.

But while that pattern has held, Obama certainly didn’t take anything for granted. His 2008 campaign dealt with misgivings with a quiet, intense, and effective round of communal outreach.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

“That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.”

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

“He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said.

A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

That, perhaps, is the crux of the political question: The pro-Israel Jewish voters and activists who spoke to POLITICO are largely die-hard Democrats, few of whom have ever cast a vote for a Republican to be president. Does the new wave of Jewish angst matter?

One place it might is fundraising. Many of the Clinton-era Democratic mega-donors who make Israel their key issue, the most prominent of whom is the Los Angeles Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, never really warmed to Obama, though Saban says he will vote for the Democrat and write him a check if asked.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

Even people writing five-figure checks to Obama, though, appeared in need of a bit of bucking up.

“We were very reassured,” Randi Levine, who attended the event with her husband, Jeffrey, a New York real estate developer, told POLITICO.

Philadelphia Jewish Democrats are among the hosts of another top-dollar event June 30. David Cohen, a Comcast executive and former top aide to former Gov. Ed Rendell, said questions about Obama’s position on Israel have been a regular, if not dominant, feature of his attempts to recruit donors.

“I takes me about five minutes of talking through the president’s position and the president’s speech, and the uniform reaction has been, ‘I guess you’re right, that’s not how I saw it covered,’” he said.

Others involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fundraising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.
 © 2011 POLITICO LLC****
3559  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 29, 2011, 12:26:47 PM

I like Pawlenty.

I am not sure why the DC/MSM (even Fox too)  press keeps writing him off though.

Bachmann is clearly way in over her head.

So was "Brock" though, though he had a lot of savvy people surrounding him who knew the ropes and pushed him through and gave him his script.

Bachmann does not have the same politically wise sheisters surrounding her as she just keeps saying one thing after another (like mixing up John Wayne Gacy with John Wayne).  Who is advising her?   These kinds of mistakes really makes her sound absolutely stupid.  Too bad there is not a conservative movement of Jews like the liberal Jews jornolist, Soros, and the rest who got "Brock" into power doing the same for a Republican. 

As Levin would say - "OK I SAID IT".  Yes liberal Jews got Brock in power!  Dammit!
3560  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / beyond description on: June 28, 2011, 02:05:14 PM
We have the Times writer being lauded by the MSM as some sort of hero for forging documents while in US illegally, and millions here illegally with forged documents yet this guy may go to jail:

***Vet Checks Wrong Box, Faces Charges
Army, Navy Photographer Accused Of Passport Fraud

POSTED: Monday, June 27, 2011
UPDATED: 7:35 pm EDT June 27, 2011

EmailPrint Embed this Video
FacebookDiggTwitterRedditDelicious Link
JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- Elisha Dawkins graduated in August from nursing school in Jacksonville.

He put on hold his plans for taking the board exams because the Navy called him into action as a photographer.

Dawkins photographed happenings at Guantanamo Bay, an act that's evidence he's a trusted member of the military with top secret clearance.

Now, Dawkins, a Navy reservist and decorated Army combat photographer who served in Iraq, is in jail, charged with passport fraud. He's facing 10 years in prison for what could be a simple misunderstanding.

"Suddenly, he's picked up and thrown in jail? Then it's time for this senator to start asking questions," U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson., D-Fla., said.

Nelson has questions echoed by Dawkins' friends, including Dianne Rinehardt.

Elisha Dawkins served with the Army in Iraq.
"It's a travesty, and we're trying to stop it," Rinehardt said.

Rinehardt went through nursing school with Dawkins and is a veteran herself. She's upset about the trouble her friend is in. In sharing his story with other vets, Rinehardt said that lots of people who don't know Dawkins can't believe it.

"We're all appalled that, how can you serve this country and be more dedicated to the ideals of this country, and serve this country and then be told, 'Guess what, you made a little clerical error. You're out of here.' And that's a travesty," Rinehardt said.

A federal indictment states that Dawkins started to fill out a passport application in 2004, didn't complete it, then filled out a new application two years later.

On that new application, he checked a box "no" for the question, "Have you ever applied before?" according to the indictment.

Dawkins got the passport, but three months ago, the government issued a warrant for his arrest. He was taking photos for the Navy at the time.

When Dawkins got back to the U.S. in April, he was arrested about a week later and has been in jail for two months since.

"The state department is implying there's something more. I want to know, and that's why I've written them," Nelson said.

"We've sent emails through our standard home, family email chains throughout the country," Rinehardt said. "The more attention we bring to this, the more people will see this as a disservice."

Dawkins' attorney calls the case an "absurd prosecution," saying that filling out a "no" box "did not merit criminal charges."

Because the trial is scheduled for next month, if Dawkins is still in jail at that point, he will insist on going to trial.

A pretrial hearing Tuesday in Miami is the next step.

Copyright 2011 by All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.****
3561  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Panetta supports one world government on: June 28, 2011, 10:04:05 AM
We are as a nation being destroyed from within:

Obama's DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme
Co-leader of initiative to cede oceans to U.N.-based international law
Posted: June 21, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

Leon Panetta
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee for secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.

Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization, Citizens for Global Solutions, that promotes world government.

Also, the group’s parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. It is a coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

As WND reported, billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main organization pushing the doctrine. The center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.

Panetta faces a Senate vote tomorrow on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.

Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.

Find out what's needed to restore America to greatness.

The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."

(Story continues below)


Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

That U.N. convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment and the management of marine natural resources.

Other recommendations of Panetta's Joint Ocean Commission Initiative include:

The Administration and Congress should establish a national ocean policy. The Administration and Congress should support regional, ecosystem-based approaches to the management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes.

Congress should strengthen and reauthorize the Coastal Zone Management Act.

Congress should strengthen the Clean Water Act.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, president and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.

Podesta served as co-chair of Obama's presidential transition team.

Panetta's oceans initiative, meanwhile, is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone.”

CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.

The organization currently works on issues that fall into five general areas: U.S. global engagement; global health and environment; peace and security; international law and justice; and international institutions.

CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.

The movement openly brings together organizations and individuals that support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.

The movement's headquarters are located near the U.N. building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.

The locations are significant, since the movement heavily promotes the U.N. and is the coordinator of various international projects, such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.

Marxist ideology

The latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of WND articles in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.

WND reported last week, Panetta keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.

Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."

WND also reported Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the CIA, the only government agency that contests the authority of the congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.

Also last week, WND reported on Panetta's ties to a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.

The Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Global military scheme

The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote tomorrow that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.

In his address to the nation last month, Obama cited the military doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Indeed, the Libya bombings have been widely regarded as a test of Responsibility to Protect.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various U.N.-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops.

As WND reported Soros' Open Society Institute is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

Annan once famously stated, "State sovereignty, in its most basic sense, is being redefined – not least by the forces of globalization and international co-operation. States are ... instruments at the service of their peoples and not vice versa."

The Carr Center for Human Rights Policy served on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that original founded Responsibility to Protect. The center was led at the time by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights.

She reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya.

WND reported the committee that devised the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Right to 'penetrate nation-states' borders'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article entitled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article, Soros said "true sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular, the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states, and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

'One world'

WND reported that the Responsibility doctrine founder, Ramesh Thakur, recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring there to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote.

"A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train," he added.

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' western power."

With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

 DoD nominee caught in 1-world scheme
3562  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Leon Panetta: US oceans should be under UN law on: June 28, 2011, 10:01:31 AM
Is Leon Panetta Suitable

To Head The Defense Department?
   CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, co-chaired an initiative to regulate U.S. oceans and cede them to United Nations-based international law.
   Panetta's oceans initiative was a key partner of an organization that promotes world government called Citizens for Global Solutions.
   Also, that group's parent organization, the World Federalist Movement, backs Responsibility to Protect, the controversial military doctrine used by Obama as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya. Billionaire George Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, the main center pushing the doctrine. That center includes the World Federalist Movement as one of its members and coordinators.
   Panetta faces a senate vote this week on whether to confirm him as defense secretary.
   Until his appointment as CIA director in 2009, Panetta co-chaired the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, which is the partner of Citizens for Global Solutions in a push to ratify U.S. laws and regulations governing the seas.
   The oceans initiative bills itself as a bipartisan, collaborative group that aims to "accelerate the pace of change that results in meaningful ocean policy reform."
   Among its main recommendations is that the U.S. should put its oceans up for regulation to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
   That UN convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations in their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources.
   The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative Leadership Council includes John Podesta, President and CEO of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress, which is reportedly highly influential in advising the White House on policy.
   Panneta's oceans initiative is a key partner of Citizens for Global Solutions, or CGS, which, according to its literature, envisions a "future in which nations work together to abolish war, protect our rights and freedoms and solve the problems facing humanity that no nation can solve alone."
   CGS states it works to "build the political will in the United States" to achieve this global vision.
   CGS is a member organization and supporter of the World Federalist Movement, which seeks a one-world government. The World Federalist Movement considers the CGS to be its U.S. branch.
   The Movement openly brings together organizations and individuals which support the establishment of a global federal system of strengthened and democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power accountable to the citizens of the world and a division of international authority among separate global agencies.
   The Movement's headquarters are located near the UN building in New York City. A second office is near the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
   These locations are significant since the Movement heavily promotes the UN and is the coordinator of various international projects such as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the Responsibility to Protect military doctrine.
   These latest revelations about Panetta follow a series of articles by this reporter in recent days highlighting possible concerns about Obama's secretary of defense pick.
   Those articles exposed that in 1979, Panetta, then a California congressman, keynoted the conference of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.
   Panetta also honored the founding member of the WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."
   Separately, this journalist reported that Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks, at its discretion, of the CIA - the only government agency that contests the authority of the Congressional comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.
   Also last week, it was reported that Panetta in 1983 served on the fundraising committee of the Institute for Policy Studies, a leftist think tank that has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security.
   The connection of Panetta's oceans initiative to a global center coordinating the Responsibility to Protect doctrine might raise questions regarding Panetta's defense strategy as he faces a vote that is likely to place him at the leadership of the Pentagon.

 Aaron Klein is Jerusalem bureau chief and senior reporter for Internet giant He is also host of an investigative radio program on New York's 770-WABC Radio, the largest talk radio station in the U.S., every Sunday between 2-4 p.m.
3563  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / leon panetta progressive ties on: June 28, 2011, 09:59:06 AM

Posted: June 18, 2011
12:40 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2011 WND

Leon Panetta
CIA Director Leon Panetta, President Obama's nominee to serve as secretary of defense, keynoted the conference of a pro-Soviet, anti-war group during the height of the Cold War.

Panetta also honored the founding member of the group, the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, or WILPF, which was once named by the State Department as a "Soviet front."

On April 11, 1984, Panetta, then a California congressman, entered into the congressional record a tribute in honor of WILPF's founding member, Lucy Haessler.

Find out what's needed to restore America to greatness.

In the record, Panetta praised Haessler as "one of the most dedicated peace activists I have ever known."

Panetta recognized that Haessler traveled to the Soviet Union as a member of the WILPF:

"She has also participated in peace conferences conducted by WILPF and the Woman's International Democracy Foundation in France, the Soviet Union, Poland and East Germany," read Panetta's congressional praise.

Panetta hailed Haessler for her activism against the pending deployment of U.S. missiles to counter the Soviet build up:

"She joined thousands of dedicated peace activists where she expressed her concern about the impending deployment of Cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles in Europe," he noted.

Haessler's WILPF took on a pro-Soviet stance. It sponsored frequent exchange visits with the Soviet Women's Committee and against "anti-Sovietism" while calling for President Reagan to "Stop the Arms Race."

Panetta's relationship with Haessler and the WILPF goes back to at least June 1979, when was the keynote speaker of WILPF's Biennial Conference at the University of California at Santa Cruz. The conference was arranged by Haessler.

WILPF's literature notes the conference honored Ava and Linus Pauling, who were prominent supports of ending nuclear proliferation.

"This successful event elevated Santa Cruz WILPF permanently into the orbit of outstanding WILPF conferences," recalled WILPF life member Ruth Hunter in a tribute to Haessler.

Haessler, meanwhile, was aligned with communist activists. KeyWiki notes that in April 1966, Haessler sponsored a testimonial dinner in New York in honor of pro-communist scientist Herbert Aptheker.

The dinner also marked the second anniversary of the American Institute for Marxist Studies. Most speakers, organizers and sponsors were known members or supporters of the Communist Party USA.

Panetta later stated he was not aware of the WILPF's communist background and was merely praising Haessler's anti-war actions.

The background is the latest concern following Panetta's nomination for Defense Department chief.

Yesterday, WND reported Panetta once proposed allowing Congress to conduct spot checks at its discretion of the country's sensitive intelligence agency.

In 1987, Panetta as a congressman introduced the CIA Accountability Act, which would have made the CIA subject to audits by the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Panetta's legislation would have allowed the comptroller general, who directs the GAO, to audit any financial transactions of the CIA and evaluate all of the agency's activities either at his own initiative or at the request of the congressional intelligence committees.

The CIA is the only government agency that contests the authority of the comptroller general to audit its activities, citing the covert aspects of its operation.

Marxist think tank

Earlier this week, WND reported on Panetta's ties to a pro-Marxist think tank accused of anti-CIA activity.

The Institute for Policy Studies, or IPS, has long faced criticism for positions some say attempt to undermine U.S. national security and for its cozy relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

A review of the voting record for Panetta, a member of Congress from 1977 to 1993, during the period in question shows an apparent affinity toward IPS's agenda.

The IPS is funded by philanthropist George Soros' Open Society Institute.

Panetta was reportedly on IPS's official 20th Anniversary Committee, celebrated April 5, 1983, at a time when the group was closely aligned with the Soviet Union.

In his authoritative book "Covert Cadre: Inside the Institute for Policy Studies," S. Steven Powell writes: "April 5, 1983, IPS threw a large twentieth-anniversary celebration to raise funds.

"On the fundraising committee for the event were 14 then-current members of the U.S. House of Representatives, including "Leon E. Panetta (D-Calif.), chairman of Budget Process Task Force of the House Committee on Budget (chairman of Subcommittee on Police and Personnel, Ninety-ninth Congress)."

Researcher Trevor Loudon, a specialist on communism, obtained and posted IPS literature documenting members of the 20th Anniversary Committee, which also included Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Gary Hart, D-Colo., with an endorsement by Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore.

Besides Panetta, congressmen on the IPS committee included Les Aspin, D-Wis., George E Brown Jr., D-Calif., Philip Burton, D-Calif., George Crockett, D-Mich., Tom Harkin, D-Iowa and Richard Ottinger, D-N.Y. Besides serving on the IPS committee, Panetta supported the IPS's "Coalition for a New Foreign and Military Policy Line" in 1983.

Powell wrote that in the 1980s, Panetta commissioned the IPS to produce an "alternative" budget that dramatically cut defense spending.

"The congressional supporters for the Institute for Policy Studies included many of those who biennially commission I.P.S. to produce an 'Alternative' Budget that dramatically cuts defense spending while increasing the spending for social welfare to levels only dreamed of by Karl Marx," wrote Powell in the November 1983 issue of the American Opinion.

"In this pact of I.P.S. intimates [are] such luminaries as ... Leon Panetta (D.-California), Chairman of the Budget Process Task Force," wrote Powell.

Congressional record

Panetta's ties to the IPS have some worried.

"Members of the mainstream news media seem to have no interest in Leon Panetta's past open involvement with the Institute for Policy Studies, an anti-CIA think tank closely linked to the former Soviet Union's KGB spy agency. But they should," writes blogger and former Air Force public affairs officer Bob McCarty.

Writing in the New American earlier this month, Christian Gomez notes, "Careful observation of former Rep. Panetta's record in the U.S. House of Representatives reveals a history of votes perceivable as in contrast with U.S. national security objectives, which if confirmed as Sec. of Defense may compromise U.S. national defense."

Indeed, as Gomez outlined, Panetta voted against the reaffirmation of the Mutual Defense Treaty with Taiwan and in support of continuing foreign aid to the Sandinista government of communist Nicaragua.

The lawmaker supported extending most-favored nation status to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact states during the height of the Cold War and voted to cede control of the Panama Canal to the pro-Soviet Panamanian government.

Panetta also vocally supported various communist regimes throughout Latin America as well as Soviet-backed paramilitary groups in the region.

He endorsed the IPS-supported bill H.R. 2760, known as the Boland-Zablocki bill, to terminate U.S. efforts to resist communism in Nicaragua.

Panetta slammed what he called President Ronald Reagan's "illegal and extraordinary vicious wars against the poor of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala."

Panetta supported the Soviet satellite government of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua and was a vocal opponent of Chile's anti-communist government.

On July 19, 1983, on the floor of the House, Panetta condemned what he called the "U.S.-sponsored covert action against Nicaragua," stating that it was "among the most dangerous aspects of the (Reagan]) administration's policy in Central America."

Soviet agents, propaganda

The IPS, meanwhile, has long maintained controversial views and a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy. It was founded in 1963 by two former governmental workers, Marcus Raskin and Richard Barnet.

In his 1988 book "Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today," Harvey Klehr, professor of politics and history at EmoryUniversity, said that IPS "serves as an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies."

The FBI labeled the group a "think factory" that helps to "train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue, and political agitation."

The IPS has been accused serving as a propaganda arm of the USSR and even a place where agents from the Soviet embassy in Washington came to convene and strategize.

In his book "The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider's View," Ladislav Bittman, a former KGB agent, called the IPS a Soviet misinformation operation at which Soviet insiders worked.

Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB."

The IPS has been implicated in anti-CIA activity. The Center for Security Studies was a 1974 IPS spin-off and sought to compromise the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence agencies, according to Discover the Networks.

The mastheads of two anti-FBI and anti-CIA publications, Counterspy and the Covert Action Information Bulletin, were heavy with IPS members.

Further, the group's former director, Robert Borosage, penned a book shortly out of college attacking the CIA and ran the so-called CIA watchdog, Center for National Security Studies.

The group has been particularly concerned with researching U.S. defense industries and arms sales policies. .

In March 1982, IPS's Arms Race and Nuclear Weapons Project was directed by Bill Arkin, who had been compiling a book of U.S. nuclear weapons data with "everything from where the bombs are stored to where weapons delivery systems are cooked up," according to KeyWiki.

With research by Brenda J. Ellison
3564  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Crimea war photos circa 1856-8. on: June 25, 2011, 10:26:23 PM
3565  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / itch science on: June 25, 2011, 08:18:56 PM
Should we call this itchology?  From Scientific American to the University of Washington itch study center.

Itch was once considered a milder form of pain on a spectrum.  Not these days.  When one feels pain one reflexively withdraws away from the stimilus that leads to pain sensation.
When one feels itch one reflexively moves the limb toward the itch sensation:

****Center for the Study of Itch opens
March 17, 2011
By Jim Dryden
Forward Facebook this Tweet this Share more
 Audio download available 
In the spinal cord, neurons expressing GRPR, which appears blue in this image, carry itch signals to the brain.

Chen lab, Washington University School of Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis has launched its new Center for the Study of Itch, believed to be the world’s first multidisciplinary program designed solely to understand and treat itch.

The center was established to bring scientists and clinicians together to conduct research on the mechanisms that transmit itch and, ultimately, to translate those findings into better treatments for chronic sufferers.

Patients with chronic itch include those with certain types of cancer and those with liver and kidney disease. Some also may develop itching as a result of certain medical treatments or in response to pain-killing drugs. Skin diseases, such as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, as well as allergic reactions, also cause itching. Antihistamines often are prescribed to treat itching caused by these latter conditions. The great majority of conditions that cause chronic itch, however, are resistant to antihistamine treatment, and some can be very debilitating.

“This center represents an important step in science’s understanding of a poorly understood phenomenon that can negatively affect quality of life for many people,” says Larry J. Shapiro, MD, executive vice chancellor for medical affairs and dean of the School of Medicine. “The new center should help speed the pace of discoveries into the basic, biological causes of itch and quickly translate them into more effective therapies.”

Historically, itch was regarded as a less intense version of pain. As a result, basic research on itching has been neglected. Only in the last few years has itch been studied as its own entity at a molecular level using mouse genetics, an approach that has long been employed to advance our understanding of numerous diseases in many other fields.

In fact, Zhou-Feng Chen, PhD, director of the new center and professor of anesthesiology, of psychiatry and of developmental biology, became interested in itch while looking for genes in the spinal cord’s pain pathway. Among the potential pain-sensing genes his team found was gastrin-releasing peptide receptor (GRPR), which turned out to be the first itch-specific receptor to be identified. Chen’s team showed that when mice were exposed to things that make them itchy, those without a GRPR gene scratched less than their normal littermates.

That led to other findings about itch and how itch signals travel along the spinal cord to the brain. Chen’s studies strongly suggest that itch and pain signals are transmitted along different pathways, so he says the time has arrived to study itch as a disease in its own right.

“There are many pain centers around the world, but we believe this will be the first center to focus on itch exclusively,” Chen says. “In fact, chronic itch is a disease of the nervous system manifested in the skin, but we understand very little about basic mechanisms and effective treatments.”

Center for the Study of Itch
To determine whether the itch signal in different conditions is transmitted through the same pathway, the center plans to establish animal models that mimic certain aspects of human chronic itch.

The center has two primary sections: the basic research and behavioral core based in the Department of Anesthesiology; and the section on clinical research, trials and patient care. Chen, who directs the basic research section, and his colleagues work with animal models and focus on genes and molecules related to itch. Lynn A. Cornelius, MD, co-director of the center and chief of the Division of Dermatology in the Department of Medicine, will direct the clinical side. As the research progresses and better insights into the mechanisms driving itch are gained, her team ultimately will evaluate and treat patients with chronic itch.

Researchers plan to collect skin biopsies from current patients who itch to create a clinical research database and biobank, providing a unique resource for identifying genetic susceptibilities for chronic itch in humans. Cornelius and her colleagues also will conduct clinical trials of potential therapeutic agents and treatment approaches.

“Itch is not just a reflex but a unique sensation,” Cornelius says. “Similar to pain, it is likely transmitted through unique neural pathways from the skin to the brain. We envision that functional imaging will be an important part of the clinical research effort. With our colleagues in neurology, we hope to both identify specific areas of the brain that are active when a person perceives the sensation of itch. Similarly, we would use imaging to track changes in these specific areas as effective treatments are administered.”

In addition to basic and translational research, the center will provide educational training opportunities for scientists interested in studying itch. The center is hiring three full-time faculty members to initiate more studies that focus on itch, its causes and potential treatments.

Chen and Cornelius also will collaborate with faculty members from other centers, departments and divisions.

“One of our major goals is to spur translational research that can bring discoveries from the bench to the clinic,” Chen says. “That requires many different kinds of expertise, so we are very excited to be joining forces with scientists whose expertise complements our own.”****

3566  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / fat substitutes cause weight *gain* in rats on: June 25, 2011, 08:11:20 PM
Scientific American:
   Health  Fat Substitutes May Make You Fatter
Research with rats reveals that fat substitutes may prime the body to consider all fats to be low-calorie and thus decrease the ability to burn real fats efficiently--leading to weight gain. Karen Hopkin reports

 | June 24, 2011 | 3
Counting on food with fake fats to help you slip into last year’s bathing suit? Better count again. Because a new study with rats shows that low-cal fat substitutes can actually promote weight gain. The work appears in the journal Behavioral Neuroscience. [Susan Swithers, Sean Ogden and Terry Davidson, "Fat Substitutes Promote Weight Gain in Rats Consuming High-Fat Diets"]

Dieters can choose from an array of snacktackular options in which sugars and fats are replaced by artificial, low-calorie substitutes. That sleight of hand seems ingenious. You can let your body think it’s getting the sweets and fats it craves while keeping the calorie count to a minimum.

But the new study suggests that this strategy is likely to backfire. Rats that consumed a mix of full-fat chips and chips with olestra wound up eating more and got fatter than rats that noshed on regular chips alone.

Their bodies were apparently getting mixed messages. A mouthful of fat is usually a signal that calories are coming, and the body reacts by getting ready to burn fuel. But olestra, which tastes like fat, carries no calories at all. So the body soon learns to stand down in the face of fat. All fat. Even real fat. Because as Shakespeare almost said, a chip by any other name still swells your seat.

—Karen Hopkin

3567  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: June 25, 2011, 10:20:40 AM
Next is gay adoption and as noted on this board the eradication of terms like mother and father to be replaced with parent.  I am not interested in hurting homosexuals but this is over the top to me. 

***By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Michael Gormley, Associated Press – 18 mins ago
ALBANY, N.Y. – After days of contentious negotiations and last-minute reversals by two Republican senators, New York became the sixth and largest state in the country to legalize gay marriage, breathing life into the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill here two years ago.

Pending any court challenges, legal gay marriages can begin in New York by late July after Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed his bill into law just before midnight Friday.

At New York City's Stonewall Inn, the Greenwich Village pub that spawned the gay rights movement on a June night in 1969, Scott Redstone watched New York sign the historic same-sex marriage law with his partner of 29 years, and popped the question.

"I said, `Will you marry me?' And he said, `Of course!'" Redstone said he and Steven Knittweis walked home to pop open a bottle of champagne.

New York becomes the sixth state where gay couples can wed, doubling the number of Americans living in a state with legal gay marriage.

"That's certainly going to have a ripple effect across the nation," said Ross Levi, executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda. "It's truly a historic night for love, our families, and democracy won."

"We made a powerful statement," Cuomo said. "This state is at its finest when it is a beacon of social justice."

The leading opponent, Democratic Sen. Ruben Diaz, was given only a few minutes to state his case during the Senate debate.

"God, not Albany, settled the issue of marriage a long time ago," said Diaz, a Bronx minister. "I'm sorry you are trying to take away my right to speak," he said. "Why are you ashamed of what I have to say?"

The Catholic Bishops of New York said the law alters "radically and forever humanity's historic understanding of marriage."

"We always treat our homosexual brothers and sisters with respect, dignity and love," the bishops said Friday. "We worry that both marriage and the family will be undermined by this tragic presumption of government in passing this legislation that attempts to redefine these cornerstones of civilization."

Legal challenges of the law and political challenges aimed at the four Republicans who supported gay marriage in the 33-29 vote are expected. GOP senators endured several marathon sessions, combing through several standard but complex bills this week, before taking up the same-sex marriage bill Friday.

The bill came to the floor for a vote after an agreement was reached on more protections for religious groups that oppose gay marriage and feared discrimination lawsuits.

"State legislators should not decide society-shaping issues," said the Rev. Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms. He said his organization would work in next year's elections to defeat lawmakers who voted for the measure.

The big win for gay rights advocates is expected to galvanize the movement around the country after an almost identical bill was defeated here in 2009 and similar measures failed in 2010 in New Jersey and this year in Maryland and Rhode Island.

Jerry Nathan of Albany, who married his partner in Massachusetts, called the vote "an incredible culmination of so much that's been going on for so many years it doesn't seem real yet."

Ultimately, gay couples will be able to marry because of two previously undecided Republicans from upstate regions far more conservative than the New York City base of the gay rights movement.

Sen. Stephen Saland, 67, voted against a similar bill in 2009, helping kill the measure and dealing a blow to the national gay rights movement. On Friday night, gay marriage supporters wept in the Senate gallery as Saland explained how his strong, traditionally family upbringing led him to embrace legalizing gay marriage.

"While I understand that my vote will disappoint many, I also know my vote is a vote of conscience," Saland, of Poughkeepsie, said in a statement to The Associated Press before the vote. "I am doing the right thing in voting to support marriage equality."

Also voting for the bill was freshman Sen. Mark Grisanti, a Buffalo Republican who also had been undecided. Grisanti said he could not deny anyone what he called basic rights.

"I apologize to those I offend," said Grisanti, a Roman Catholic. "But I believe you can be wiser today than yesterday. I believe this state needs to provide equal rights and protections for all its residents," he said.

A huge street party erupted outside the Stonewall Inn Friday night, with celebrants waving rainbow flags and dancing after the historic vote.

Watching the festivities from across the street was Sarah Ellis, who has been in a six-year relationship with her partner, Kristen Henderson. Ellis said the measure would enable them to get married in the fall. They have twin toddlers and live in Sea Cliff on Long Island.

"We've been waiting. We considered it for a long time, crossing the borders and going to other states," said Ellis, 39. "But until the state that we live in, that we pay taxes in, and we're part of that community, has equal rights and marriage equality, we were not going to do it."

The bill makes New York only the third state, after Vermont and New Hampshire, to legalize marriage through a legislative act and without being forced to do so by a court.***

3568  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / back to my post of march 30 on: June 24, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
****Oh we are sooo humanitarian!
Well if true how humanitarian is it to have let Ghadday kill some people and gain back control vs what we are seeing now - a *more prolonged* back and forth war?

At this point more people will die then if we had not done the "no-fly" thing.

Yes playing coy with Momar buys time to "get to know" the opposition (Clintons now notorius "getting to know you" rant), but dithering on what to do with Ghaddaffy probably will turn out to be worse.  We should just get rid of this one guy or stop the half assed stuff altogether.  This total chirade of trying to help other kill the guy or pray he flees even though we are also saying he must stand trial for war crimes - the whole rational is confused and is dithering.  Kill him - the one guy holding this whole country at bay or don't get involved at all.

More people are now dying as we speak.****

NOW;Fast forward to more recent estimates of the dead thanks to Bamster's dithering.  He has mucho blood on HIS hands.  Like many including myself have said since day one - kill ghaddafy and get it over with or stay out of Libyia altogether:
****Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Casualties of the 2011 Libyan Civil War)
Jump to: navigation, search
Estimates of deaths in the 2011 Libyan civil war vary with figures from 2,000-13,000 given between March 2 and June 18.[1][2] An exact figure is hard to ascertain, partly due to a media clamp-down by the Libyan government. Some conservative estimates have been released. Some of the killing "may amount to crimes against humanity" according to the United Nations Security Council[3] and as of March 2011[update] is under investigation by the International Criminal Court.[4]

Contents [hide]
1 Deaths caused by Loyalist forces
2 Deaths caused by Anti-Gaddafi forces
3 Deaths caused by Coalition forces
4 Legal status
5 Timeline of reported deaths per event
6 Deaths overall
7 Notable deaths, disappearances and other cases
8 References

[edit] Deaths caused by Loyalist forces
On February 22, the International Coalition Against War Criminals gave an estimate that 519 people had died, 3,980 were wounded and over 1,500 were missing.[5]

Human Rights Watch have estimated that at least 233 people had been killed by February 22.[6]

On February 23, Italy's Minister of Foreign Affairs Franco Frattini stated that according to his information 1,000 people had died so far.[7][8]

On February 24, the IFHR said that 130 soldiers had been executed in Benghazi and al-Baida, after they mutinied and sided with the protesters.[9]

On February 25, Navi Pillay, the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations, said that reports indicated that "thousands may have been killed or injured".[10]

On March 20, Abdul Hafiz Ghoga, spokesman for the National Transitional Council, stated that "more than 8,000" people are killed as a result of the uprising.[11]

[edit] Deaths caused by Anti-Gaddafi forces
Among the security forces there had been more than 750 dead, including civilians in support of the government, alleged mercenaries [12] and government soldiers. There have been many reports that members of the security forces have been killed by both the government and the opposition.

On February 18, two policemen were hanged by protesters in Benghazi.[13] Also, on the same day, 50 alleged African mercenaries, mostly from Chad, were executed by the protesters in al-Baida. Some of them were killed when protestors burned down the police station in which they locked them up[14] and at least 15 were lynched in front of the courthouse in al-Baida.[15] The bodies of some of them were put on display and caught on video.[16][17] By February 23, the government confirmed that 111 soldiers had been killed.[18]

On February 23, a group of 22 government soldiers attempted to make a breakout from an air base near Derna, which had been under siege for days by rebel fighters. Within hours, all of them were captured and eventualy 12 of them were shot execution style while a 13th was hanged by the opposition forces.[19] Between February 15 and May 22, 37 former government loyalists were killed in Benghazi in revenge killings by some opposition groups.[20]

Toward the end of the Battle of Misrata, at least 27 sub-Saharan Africans from Mali, Niger or Chad, who were accused of being mercenaries, were executed by rebel forces.[21]

[edit] Deaths caused by Coalition forces
The Libyan official sources claimed that at least between 64 and 90 people were killed during the bombardments on the first two days of the U.N. intervention and another 150 had been wounded.[22] The Vatican news agency confirmed that in Tripoli alone, at least 40 civilians died as a result of the bombing campaign.[23] According to the Libyan Health office, the airstrikes killed 718 civilians and wounded 4,067, 433 seriously, by May 26.[24]

On April 1, NATO airstrikes killed 14 rebel fighters and wounded seven more on the frontline at Brega.[25]

On April 7, news reports surfaced that NATO bombers killed 10-13 rebels and wounded 14-22 near the eastern oil town of Brega.[26]

On April 27, at least one NATO warplane attacked the Libyan rebel forces position near the besieged city of Misrata, killing 12 fighters and wounding five others.[27]

On June 19, at least nine civilians were killed in a NATO airstrike on Tripoli. Reporters saw bodies being pulled out of a destroyed bulding. NATO acknoledged being responsible for the civilians deaths.[28]

On June 20, 15 civilians including three children were killed by another NATO airstrike on Sorman. [29]

[edit] Legal status
On February 26, 2011, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stated in UNSC Resolution 1970, "the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity"[3] and referred "the situation" in Libya since February 15, 2011 to the International Criminal Court (ICC),[3] a permanent tribunal that presently can prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes. On March 4, the ICC assigned investigation of the case to Pre-trial Chamber I, consisting of Judge Cuno Tarfusser from Italy, Judge Sylvia Steiner from Brazil and Judge Sanji Mmasenono Monageng from Botswana.[4]

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen stated on March 28 that NATO was impartial and that it interpreted the terms of UNSC Resolution 1973 on the protection of civilians to apply to both rebel and government forces. The BBC stated that "the rebels felt they had a 'private understanding' of the NATO mission, [believing] that the western world has joined them in a campaign of regime change." The NATO Secretary General described the possibility that NATO would attack rebel forces who endanger civilian populations as "hypothetical" as of the date of the interview.[30]

[edit] Timeline of reported deaths per event
Date Opposition fatalities Government fatalities Detail
February 16 1 None reported Protests in Roujdane.[31]
February 17–20 332-479 163 First Battle of Benghazi
February 17–25 300-700 None reported Tripoli clashes
February 17 4-10 None reported Protests in Ajdabiya.[32]
February 18 2 None reported Protests in Qubah.[33]
February 18–May 15 358 358-545 Battle of Misrata
February 20 4 None reported Protests in Tobruk.[34]
February 20 3 None reported Protests in Zintan.[35]
February 20 1 None reported Protests in Zuwarah.[36]
February 21–May 22 None reported 37 Revenge killings against loyalists in Benghazi.[37]
February 22–24 9 None reported Protests in Gharyan.[38][39]
February 23 2 13 Capture and execution of loyalist fighters at Derna.[19]
February 24–March 10 148 65 Battle of Az Zawiyah
February 26 22 None reported Capture and execution of rebel fighters at Sirte.[40]
March 1–ongoing 299-307 386 Battles of the Nafusa Mountains
March 2 14 2-10 First Battle of Brega
March 4–12 71-81 4-27 Battle of Ra's Lanuf
March 4 34-100 None reported Explosion at an arms depot in Benghazi.[41][42]
March 6 12-60 1 First Battle of Bin Jawad
March 13–15 5 25 Second Battle of Brega
March 14 4 None reported Government re-taking of Zuwarah.[43]
March 15–26 136 41 Battle of Ajdabiya
March 15 1 None reported Rebel fighter plane crashes.[44]
March 17 None reported 1-2 Bombing run on the Benghazi military air base.[45]
March 18 3 None reported Fighting in Zueitina.[46]
March 19–20 120 27-30 Second Battle of Benghazi
March 20 1 None reported Killing of a rebel activist in Benghazi.[47]
March 22–24 None reported 19-28 Coalition air-strikes on Tripoli.[48]
March 26–30 12 7 Late March rebel offensive
March 28 1 None Execution of captured rebel at Sirte.[49]
March 31–April 7 46-49 28 Third Battle of Brega
April 6 None reported 3 Attack on Sarir oil field.[50]
April 8–June 14 75-87 91-92 Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road
April 17 None reported 20 Rebel attack on a military headquarters in Zawiyah.[51]
April 21–May 25 27 3 East Libyan Desert Campaign
May 4 1 None reported Rebel fighter dies of wounds in Benghazi.[52]
May 12 1 None reported Rebel French mercenary killed in Benghazi.[53]
May 16–ongoing 215 82-85 Battle of the Misrata frontline
May 29 2 3 Suppression of an opposition protest in Tripoli.[54][55]
June 2 None reported 2 NATO air-strike in Al 'Aziziyah.[56]
June 4 None reported 3 NATO helicopter strike in Brega.[57]
June 7 None reported 1 NATO air-strike in Tripoli.[58]
June 9–16 22 None reported Zliten uprising
June 11–12 30 2 Az Zawiyah raid
June 11 1 None reported Fighting in Sabha.[59]
June 13 6 None reported Fighting west of Az Zawiyah.[60]
June 16 None reported 1 Attack on a military patrol in Tripoli.[61]
June 17 3 None reported Suppression of an opposition protest in Tripoli.[62]
June 18 None reported 1 Rebel sniper fire in Tripoli.[63]
June 19 None reported 4 NATO air-strike in Sabha.[64]
June 23 None reported 9 NATO air-strike near Zliten.[65]

Based on the numbers, 2,334-3,029 opposition members/fighters (including some civilian supporters) and 1,403-1,637 Gaddafi loyalists have been killed by June 23, 2011.

In addition, another 370 opposition fighters and activists have been confirmed as missing in the fighting in the east by the end of March,[66] 1,174-2,000 are reported to be missing in the Battle of Misrata and 74 were missing following the Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road, for a total of 1,618-2,444 rebels reported missing. However, this number could be higher since there was one report that 700 rebels were missing following the First Battle of Bin Jawad.

Date Civilian fatalities Detail
February 24–March 10 87 Battle of Az Zawiyah
February 18–May 15 707 Battle of Misrata
March 6 1 Shooting in Bayda.[67]
March 12 1 Killing of Al Jazeera cameraman near Benghazi.[68]
March 15–26 25-30 Battle of Ajdabiya
March 18 3 Fighting in Zueitina.[46]
March 19–June 7 856 NATO bombing campaign.[69]
March 26–30 7 Late March 2011 Libyan rebel offensive
Late March–early May 1,400 Sinking of refugee boats while they were trying to reach Italy.[70]
April 5 1 Third Battle of Brega
April 8–May 21 26 Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road
April 12 1 Woman refugee dies before reaching Malta.[71]
April 21–May 25 5 East Libyan Desert Campaign
May 16–ongoing 6 Battle of the Misrata frontline
May 22 4 Fire at a refugee camp in Tunisia near the border.[72]
May 24 2 Clashes at a refugee camp in Tunisia near the border.[73]
May 31 1 Refugee dies before reaching Malta.[74]
June 2 272 Refugee immigrant boat sinks while it was trying to reach Italy.[75]
June 2 1 One person killed by loyalists in Tripoli.[76]
June 5 1 One person tortured and killed by rebels in Benghazi.[77]
June 11-12 1 Az Zawiyah raid
June 19 5-9 NATO air-strike in Tripoli.[78][79]
June 20 19 NATO air-strike on Khouidli Hamidi's house in Surman.[80]

There have been at least 3,432-3,441 reported civilians killed by June 20, 2011. However, it should be noted that a number of civilians were also killed during the Second Battle of Benghazi and during the campaign in the Nafusa mountains, so the number could be far higher. Also, the number of civilians reported to had been killed in NATO air-strikes could be smaller because it was proven that some of the previous government-announced tolls from individual strikes were exaggerated.

In the end, according to the numbers presented, a total of 7,161-8,105 deaths have been reported, of which some have not been independently confirmed, and 1,618-3,144 people have been reported as missing.

[edit] Deaths overall
The total number of people killed includes protesters, armed belligerents, and civilians:

Source Libyan casualties Time period
World Health Organization 2,000 killed[81] February 15 - March 2, 2011
International Federation for Human Rights 3,000 killed[82] February 15 - March 5, 2011
Libyan League for Human Rights 6,000 killed[82] February 15 - March 5, 2011
National Transitional Council 10,000 killed[83] February 15 - April 12, 2011
UN Human Rights Council 10,000-15,000 killed[84] February 15 - June 9, 2011
Al Jazeera English 13,000 killed[85] February 15 - June 18, 2011

[edit] Notable deaths, disappearances and other cases
Ali Hassan al-Jaber, journalist of Al Jazeera, killed
Mohammed Nabbous, journalist and founder of Libya Alhurra TV, killed
Kais al-Hilali, artist famous for painting anti-Gaddafi mural, killed
Tim Hetherington, British-American photojournalist, killed[86]
Chris Hondros, American photojournalist, killed[86]
Ahmed Eyzert, engineer who discovered and masterminded the 'invaluable' technique of using Google Earth Maps satelite imagery with coordinates to enhance artilary accuracy, killed[87]
Saif al-Arab al-Gaddafi, son of Muammar Gaddafi, killed along with three of his children in a NATO air-strike
Iman al-Obeidi, alleged rape case with media and governmental response
Rana Akbani, Syrian journalist in government custody from March 28 to April 14[88]
Anton Hammerl, missing South African photographer and presumed killed on April 5[89][90]
Manu Brabo, Spanish photographer in government custody from April 5 to May 18[91]
James Foley, United States journalist in government custody from April 5 to May 18
Clare Morgana Gillis, United States journalist in government custody from April 5 to May 18
Nigel Chandler, British journalist released from government custody on May 18
[edit] References
^ Staff writer (2 March 2011). "RT News Line, March 2". RT. Retrieved 15 March 2011. 
^ Libyan rebels continue push towards Tripoli
^ a b c United Nations Security Council (2011-02-26) (pdf). Resolution 1970 (2011). ICC. Archived from the original on 2011-03-15. Retrieved 2011-03-15. 
^ a b International Criminal Court (2011-03-04). "Situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya assigned to Pre-trial Chamber I". International Criminal Court. Archived from the original on 2011-03-15. Retrieved 2011-03-15. 
^ "Live Blog – Libya Feb 22". Blogs. Al Jazeera. 22 February 2 011. Retrieved 22 February 2 011. 
^ "European nationals, companies flee Libyan unrest". Agence France-Presse. Philippine Daily Inquirer. 22 February 2 011. Retrieved 25 February 2011. 
^ Dziadosz, Alexander (9 February 2011). "Fear stalks Tripoli, celebrations in Libya's east". Reuters. Retrieved 23 February 2011. 
^ "Live Blog – Libya Feb 23". Blogs. Al Jazeera. 2011-02-22. Retrieved 23 February 2011. 
^ "Libya – 130 soldiers executed: News24: Africa: News". News24. 18 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ BBC News (25 February 2011). Libyan crackdown 'escalates' – UN.
^ "Libya Live Blog - March 20". Al Jazeera English. 20 March 2011. Retrieved 20 March 2011. 
^ "Black men mistaken for mercenaries". 6 March 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011. 
^ "Two policemen hanged in Libya protests". 19 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ Ian Black and Owen Bowcott (18 February 2011). "Libya protests: massacres reported as Gaddafi imposes news blackout | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ Hauslohner, Abigail (23 February 2011). "Libya's Alleged Foreign Mercenaries: More Gaddafi Victims?". TIME.,8599,2053490,00.html. Retrieved 25 February 2011. 
^ 1:50. "African Mercenary Killed in Libya". YouTube. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ "African Mercenary Killed in Libya 2". YouTube. 22 February 2011. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ 7:15 pm. "Libya says 300 dead in violence, including 111 soldiers". The Asian Age. Retrieved 24 February 2011. 
^ a b Smith, Graeme (1 April 2011). "A rebellion divided: spectre of revenge killings hangs over eastern Libya". The Globe and Mail (Toronto).
^ "Killings of Gadhafi agents in Benghazi raise fears of reprisal killings in rebel-held Libya".
^ Libyan rebels hand out rules on POW treatment; some 300 in custody, including 10 foreigners
^ "Libya says 64 killed in western military strikes". The Times Of India. 2011-03-20. Retrieved 2011-03-21. 
^ "“At least 40 civilian deaths in air raid on Tripoli,” complains Apostolic Vicar of Tripoli, repeating the urgency for a diplomatic solution". Agenzia Fides. 2011-03-31. Retrieved 2011-03-31. 
^ "NATO bombing killed 718 civilians: Libya". 1 June 2011. Retrieved 1 June 2011. 
^ Meo, Nick (2 April 2011). "Libya: Nato warplanes kill 14 rebels". London: Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-04-04. 
^ "“NATO checking report of air strike on Libya rebels". AFP. 2011-04-07.
^ Chivers, C.J. (27 April 2011). "NATO Strike Kills 12 Libyan Rebels in Misurata". New York City: The New York times. Retrieved 2011-04-28. 
^ NATO acknowledges civilian deaths in Tripoli strike
^ "Nato protection 'applies to both sides' in Libya". BBC News. 28 March 2011. Retrieved 29 March 2011. 
^ The Times Of India.
^ Black, Ian (17 February 2011). "Libya's day of rage met by bullets and loyalists". The Guardian (London).
^ "Exclusive - Tobruk celebrates, Libya's east abandons Gaddafi". Reuters. 23 February 2011.
^ Daragahi, Borzou (23 April 2011). "Libyan rebels firmly in control in mountainous west". Los Angeles Times.
^ Libya: Fewer Police Abuses in Zuwara, Under Control of Anti-government Forces
^ "Killings of Gadhafi agents in Benghazi raise fears of reprisal killings in rebel-held Libya".
^ Libyan Soldiers Executed by Foreign African Mercenaries for Refusing to Kill Civilians (Feb. 2011)
^ Protesting continues during funeral procession of Gharyan Martyr (Feb. 24)
^ Fadel, Leila; Sly, Liz; Faiola, Anthony (27 February 2011). "Rebel army may be formed as Tripoli fails to oust Gaddafi". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2011-02-28. 
^ Los Angeles Times.
^ "Air and ground: Gadhafi, rebels each claim control". March 14.,_rebels_each_claim_control
^ "Photo: Pilot Mohammed Mokhtar Osman who crashed into Baab Al Aziziyah". March 15.
^ "Gadhafi forces bombing Benghazi: witnesses". CBC News. March 17.
^ a b "As it happened: Libya crisis". BBC News. March 18.
^ Writing on wall for street artist
^ Brigade commander killed (March 22),[1] 9 killed/rebel claim (March 23),[2] 18 killed (March 23/24)[3], total of 19-28 reported killed
^ McGreal, Chris (April 17). "Saved from Gaddafi's torturers – by a simple gesture of kindness". The Guardian (London).
^ "Libya says NATO air strike hits major oil field". Reuters. April 6.
^ "Misrata shelled again, casualties seen". April 19.,_casualties_seen
^ "Relatives mourn during the funeral of Abdul-Gader Al-Faitori, a rebel fighter who died after being injured a month ago during combat in Benghazi on May 4.". The Boston Globe. May 16.
^ "Libyan rebels seek US recognition". May 13.
^ Activist video shows big anti-Gaddafi protest in Tripoli
^ Libyans chafe under Gadhafi's rule in Tripoli
^ More NATO strikes hit Libya
^ Ugly 5-1 and Ugly 5-2... Apaches on the attack! Gaddafi's radar HQ is destroyed in first blitz by helicopters from Prince Harry base
^ Gadhafi defiant in face of heaviest NATO airstrikes in Libya
^ Gadhafi offered way out
^ Libyan rebels receiving arms from Qatar and Tunisians?
^ In Libya, More Novice Soldiers in Defense of Qaddafi
^ What's really going on in Gadhafi's Tripoli?
^ Libyan Media Minders Nervous After Guard Death
^ Nato admits Libya bombing error
^ Nato chief says alliance will finish job in Libya
^ "Libya: At Least 370 Missing From Country's East". 30 March 2011.
^ "Libyan doctors put themselves on front lines, and in government gunsights, to serve as medics". April 4.
^ Al Jazeera: Cameraman Ali Hassan Al-Jaber Killed In Libya Ambush
^ NATO condemns fiery speech by Libyan leader
^ "600 feared dead in Libya refugee boat sinking: UN". 10 May 2011.
^ "Ethnic Berbers Flee Conflict in Western Libya, Reach Tunisia". 12 April 2011.
^ "Fire kills four at Tunisian refugee camp". 22 May 2011. Retrieved 22 May 2011. 
^ "Rights watchdog urges Tunisia to protect refugees after 6 killed". 24 June 2011. Retrieved 24 June 2011. 
^ "Maltese patrol boat rescues 76 migrants". 1 June 2011.
^ "U.N.: At least 150 drown when boat from Libya capsizes". CNN. 4 June 2011.
^ Libyans chafe under Gadhafi's rule in Tripoli
^ "Libyan rebels accused of arbitrary arrests, torture". CNN. 5 June 2011.
^ "Nato raid in Tripoli kills five, say Libyan officials". BBC news. 19 June 2011.
^ NATO strike in Tripoli kills 9 civilians, Libya government says
^ Libya: NATO kills 19 civilians in air strike
^ Staff writer (2 March 2011). "RT News Line, March 2". RT. Retrieved 15 March 2011. 
^ a b Adams, Richard (2011-03-10). "Libya uprising - Thursday 10 March | World news". London: Retrieved 2011-03-19. 
^ Qatar conference urges Gaddafi to quit
^ Up to 15,000 killed in Libya war: U.N. rights expert
^ Libyan rebels continue push towards Tripoli
^ a b "Two photojournalists killed in Libyan city of Misrata". BBC News. 21 April 2011. Retrieved 21 April 2011. 
^ Google points way for Libyan rebel artillery in fight against Gaddafi
^ Journalists under attack in Libya: The tally
^ "Family believes South African journalist dead". 19 May 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
^ "Obit of the Day: Anton Hammerl". 21 May 2011. Retrieved 19 May 2011. 
^ "No word on fate of Hammerl". 18 May 2011. Retrieved 18 May 2011. 
[hide]v · d · e2011 Libyan civil war
Part of the Arab Spring · Timeline
Forces Anti-Gaddafi forces (National Liberation Army – Free Libyan Air Force – NCLO) • Military of Libya (Libyan Army – Libyan Air Force – Libyan Navy) • Revolutionary Guard Corps
Battles and operations First Battle of Benghazi • Tripoli clashes • Battle of Misrata • Battle of Az Zawiyah • Nafusa Mountains Campaign (Battle of Wazzin) • First Battle of Brega • Battle of Ra's Lanuf • Battle of Bin Jawad • Second Battle of Brega • Second Battle of Benghazi • Battle of Ajdabiya • Late March rebel offensive • Third Battle of Brega • Battle of Brega–Ajdabiya road • East Libyan Desert Campaign • Battle of the Misrata frontline • Sabha clashes • Zliten uprising • Az Zawiyah raid

Operation Ellamy • Operation Odyssey Dawn • Opération Harmattan • Operation Mobile • Operation Unified Protector
Places Bab al-Azizia • Green Square • Maydan al-Shajara
People Muammar Gaddafi • Saif al-Islam Muammar Al-Gaddafi • Mustafa Abdul Jalil • Abdul Fatah Younis • Abdul Hafiz Ghoga • Hussein Sadiq al Musrati • Mohammed El Senussi • Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi • Fathi Terbil • Mohammed Nabbous • Mahmoud Jibril • Khalifa Belqasim Haftar • Ali Tarhouni • Ali Abd-al-Aziz al-Isawi • Iman al-Obeidi
Impact International reactions • Domestic responses (Gaddafi government response) • Casualties • Human rights violations
3569  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar, & Gold/Silver on: June 24, 2011, 10:42:03 AM
We are headed for a crash.  There are just too many things that can go wrong.  It is just a matter of time before it catches up and the fed, the imf the euro, etc cannot bs out of it.

Don't worry be happy like Tom Hanks who will vote for Bamster again.

3570  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / period of fewer sun spots and flairs due about now on: June 20, 2011, 02:43:41 PM
"BTW, count Fox's Bret Baier (for whom I have genuine respect, unlike many of the Barbie and Ken dolls that populate some of Fox's shows) as amongst the readers of this forum and indeed, this thread.  Tonight he reported on the possibility that a decrease in Solar Flares could results in Global Cooling."

From the latest Economist on this issue:

***Special reports Technology quarterly Solar physics
Sun down
Several lines of evidence suggest that the sun is about to go quiet
Jun 16th 2011 | from the print edition
Spots of bother?DURING the four centuries that it has been studied in detail, the sun has usually behaved in a regular manner. The number of spots on its surface has waxed and waned in cycles that last, on average, 11 years. Such cycles begin with spots appearing in mid-solar latitudes and end with them near the equator. And the more spots there are, the more solar storms there are around.

Sometimes, though, the sun sulks and this solar cycle stops. That has happened twice since records began: during the so-called Maunder minimum of 1645 to 1715 and the Dalton minimum of 1790 to 1830. These coincided with periods when global temperatures were lower than average, though why is a matter of debate.

An absence of sunspots also means an absence of solar flares and their more violent siblings, coronal mass ejections. Such outbursts disrupt radio and satellite communications, electricity grids and a variety of electronic equipment, so the pattern of solar activity is of more than academic interest. A new solar minimum, then, would test theories about how the climate works and also make communications more reliable. And many solar physicists think such a new minimum is on the cards. A group of them, who all work for America’s National Solar Observatory (NSO), have just had a meeting in New Mexico, under the aegis of the American Astronomical Society, to announce their latest results.

Frank Hill and his team were the discoverers, 15 years ago, of an east-west jet stream in the sun. They also worked out that the latitude of this wind is related to the sunspot cycle. At the beginning of a cycle the jet stream is found, like sunspots, in mid-latitudes. As the cycle progresses, it follows the spots towards the equator.

Intriguingly, however, Dr Hill’s studies indicate that the jet stream of a new cycle starts to form years before the sunspot pattern. This time, that has not happened. History suggests a new cycle should begin in 2019. If the sun were behaving itself, Dr Hill’s team would have seen signs of a new jet stream in 2008 or 2009. They did not. Nor are there indications of one even now. If a change in the jet stream really is a leading indicator of solar activity, then no new cycle is on the horizon.

The second study which suggests something odd is happening looked at the strengths of sunspots. Matthew Penn and William Livingston have analysed 13 years of data which indicate that, independently of the number of spots around, there has been a decrease in their strength.

Sunspots are caused by irruptions into its surface of the sun’s deeper magnetism. These create local drops in temperature, which make the surface gas darker. Over the period which Dr Penn and Dr Livingston analysed, the average magnetic strength of the irruptions has declined. Below a certain threshold, they will not be strong enough to overcome the convective mixing of the gas at the surface, and spots will disappear altogether. If the present trend continues, that will happen in 2021.

The third measure of the sun’s decline is in its outer atmosphere, the corona. At each solar maximum, the corona sloughs off the magnetic fingerprint of the previous cycle by pushing it to the poles. According to Richard Altrock, the leader of another NSO team at the meeting, that does not appear to be happening in the present cycle. It looks, then, as if a new, extended solar minimum is about to begin.

That is good news for operators of communications satellites. And it is interesting news for those who worry about global warming. If the Maunder and Dalton minima actually did affect the climate, then a new one might counteract the effects of the extra greenhouse gases people are now pumping into the atmosphere—at least, until the solar cycle returns. Whether the breathing space thus granted would be used wisely or squandered is another matter. Do not expect that debate to be as placid as the spotless sun.

from the print edition | Science and Technology***
3571  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Crats and some Cans are dissonant with most Americans on: June 18, 2011, 11:52:16 AM
I walk into a doctor's lounge this morning and the TV is on showing the talking heads discussing Boehner's, Biden's, and the One's golf game.

Talk about dissonance with Americans!  sad

Why when I think of Boehner I freely associate to the word "idiot"?
3572  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / G Will: Texas Latino unlike California Latinos on: June 18, 2011, 11:49:16 AM
For conservatives, it can't get any better

By George Will |

For a conservative Texan seeking national office, it could hardly get better than this: In a recent 48-hour span, Ted Cruz, a candidate for next year's Republican Senate nomination for the seat being vacated by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, was endorsed by the Club for Growth PAC, FreedomWorks PAC, talk-radio host Mark Levin and Erick Erickson of And Cruz's most conservative potential rival for the nomination decided to seek a House seat instead.

For conservatives seeking reinforcements for Washington's too-limited number of limited-government constitutionalists, it can hardly get better than this: Before he earned a Harvard law degree magna cum laude (and helped found the Harvard Latino Law Review) and clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Cruz's senior thesis at Princeton - his thesis adviser was professor Robert George, one of contemporary conservatism's intellectual pinups - was on the Constitution's Ninth and 10th amendments. Then as now, Cruz argued that these amendments, properly construed, would buttress the principle that powers not enumerated are not possessed by the federal government.

Utah's freshman Sen. Mike Lee, who clerked for Justice Sam Alito when Alito was an appeals court judge, has endorsed Cruz. The national chairman of Cruz's campaign is Ed Meese, the grand old man of Reagan administration alumni.

For anyone seeking elective office anywhere, this story is as good as it gets: At age 14, Cruz's father fought with rebels (including Fidel Castro) against Cuba's dictator, Fulgencio Batista. Captured and tortured, at 18 he escaped to America with $100 sewn in his underwear. He graduated from the University of Texas and met his wife - like him, a mathematician - with whom he founded a small business processing seismic data for the oil industry.

By the time Ted Cruz was 13, he was winning speech contests sponsored by a Houston free-enterprise group that gave contestants assigned readings by Frederic Bastiat, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. In his early teens he traveled around Texas and out of state giving speeches. At Princeton, he finished first in the 1992 U.S. National Debate Championship and North American Debate Championship.

As Texas's solicitor general from 2003 to 2008, Cruz submitted 70 briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court, and he has, so far, argued nine cases there. He favors school choice and personal investment accounts for a portion of individuals' Social Security taxes. He supports the latter idea with a bow to the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who said such accounts enable the doorman to build wealth the way the people in the penthouse do.

Regarding immigration, Cruz, 40, demands secure borders and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants but echoes Ronald Reagan's praise of legal immigrants as "Americans by choice," people who are "crazy enough" to risk everything in the fundamentally entrepreneurial act of immigrating. He believes Hispanics are - by reasons of faith, industriousness and patriotism - natural Republicans. He says the military enlistment rate is higher among them than among any other demographic, and he says an Austin businessman observed, "When was the last time you saw a Hispanic panhandler?"

The Republican future without Hispanic support would be bleak. Forty-seven percent of Americans under 18 are minorities, and the largest portion are Hispanics. One in six Americans is Hispanic. In 37 states, the Hispanic population increased at least 50 percent between 2000 and 2010. The four states with the largest Hispanic populations - California, Texas, Florida and New York - have 151 electoral votes.

One in five Americans lives in California or Texas, and Texas is for Republicans what California is for Democrats - the largest reliable source of electoral votes and campaign cash. In 2005, Texas became a majority-minority state; in five years Hispanics will be a plurality; in about two decades, immigration and fertility will make them a majority.

But, Cruz says, unlike California's Hispanics, those in Texas "show a willingness to be a swing vote." Furthermore, the three Hispanics elected to major offices in 2010 - Florida's Sen. Marco Rubio, Nevada's Gov. Brian Sandoval and New Mexico's Gov. Susana Martinez - are Republicans.

"It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan," says Cruz, who believes the reaction against Barack Obama will give the Republican Party a cadre of conservatives who take their bearings from constitutional law as it was before the New Deal judicial revolution attenuated limits on government. This cadre is arriving: Sens. Lee and Rubio were born seven days apart, and Cruz six months earlier.

The parties' profiles are often drawn in the Senate. The Republican profile is becoming more Madisonian.

Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

George Will's latest book is "With a Happy Eye but: America and the World, 1997-2002" to purchase a copy, click here. Comment on this column by clicking here.
3573  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / reality of the universe beyond human comprehension on: June 18, 2011, 10:13:28 AM
Good article in Scientific American with interview of this fellow.  He comes to the conclusion after studying and inventing string theory black holes that human minds are totally incapable of truly understanding the universe.  I can't pull up the article but this is the interesting fellow who is probably more interesting then the celebrated Stephen Hawking.  Then again I am a mere mortal compared to any of these people:

***Leonard Susskind
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Leonard Susskind

Leonard Susskind
Born 1940[1]
South Bronx, New York City, New York, USA
Residence USA
Nationality USA
Fields Physicist
Institutions Yeshiva University
University of Tel Aviv
Stanford University
Korea Institute for Advanced Study
Alma mater City College of New York
Cornell University
Doctoral advisor Peter A. Carruthers
Known for Holographic principle
String theory landscape
Quark confinement
Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory
Notable awards American Institute of Physics' Science Writing Award
Sakurai Prize (1998)
Boris Pregel Award, New York Academy of Science (1975)[2]
Leonard Susskind (born 1940)[1] is the Felix Bloch Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stanford University. His research interests include string theory, quantum field theory, quantum statistical mechanics and quantum cosmology.[2] He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences,[4] and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,[5] an associate member of the faculty of Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics,[6] and a distinguished professor of the Korea Institute for Advanced Study.[7] Susskind is widely regarded as one of the fathers of string theory,[8], having, with Yoichiro Nambu and Holger Bech Nielsen, independently introduced the idea that particles could in fact be states of excitation of a relativistic string.[9] He was the first to introduce the idea of the string theory landscape in 2003.[10] In 1997, Susskind was awarded the J.J. Sakurai Prize for his "pioneering contributions to hadronic string models, lattice gauge theories, quantum chromodynamics, and dynamical symmetry breaking." Susskind's hallmark, according to colleagues, has been the application of "brilliant imagination and originality to the theoretical study of the nature of the elementary particles and forces that make up the physical world."[11]

Contents [hide]
1 Early life and education
2 Career
2.1 Scientific career
2.2 Development of String Theory
3 Books
3.1 The Cosmic Landscape
3.2 The Black Hole War
4 Lectures
4.1 Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum
4.2 A separate series of lectures on Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity
5 Smolin-Susskind Debate
6 See also
7 References
8 Further reading
9 External links

[edit] Early life and education
Susskind was born to a poor Jewish family from the South Bronx section of New York City,[12] and now resides in Palo Alto, California. He began working as a plumber at the age of 16, taking over for his father who had become ill.[12] Later, he enrolled in the City College of New York as an engineering student, graduating with a B.S. in physics in 1962.[5] In an interview in the Los Angeles Times, Susskind recalls the moment he discussed with his father this change in career path: "When I told my father I wanted to be a physicist, he said, ‘Hell no, you ain’t going to work in a drug store.’ I said no, not a pharmacist. I said, ‘Like Einstein.’ He poked me in the chest with a piece of plumbing pipe. ‘You ain’t going to be no engineer,’ he said. ‘You’re going to be Einstein.’"[12] Susskind then studied at Cornell University under Peter A. Carruthers where he received his Ph.D. in 1965. He has been married twice, first in 1960,[5] and has four children.

[edit] Career
Susskind was an Assistant Professor of Physics, then an Associate Professor at Yeshiva University (1966–1970), after which he went for a year at the University of Tel Aviv (1971–72), returning to Yeshiva to become a Professor of Physics (1970–1979). Since 1979 he has been Professor of Physics at Stanford University,[13] and since 2000 has held the Felix Bloch Professorship of Physics.

In 2007, Susskind joined the Faculty of Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, as an Associate Member. He has been elected to the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and was awarded the 1998 Sakurai Prize for theoretical physics. He is also a distinguished professor at Korea Institute for Advanced Study.[14]

[edit] Scientific career
Susskind was one of at least three physicists who independently discovered during or around 1970 that the Veneziano dual resonance model of strong interactions could be described by a quantum mechanical model of strings,[15] and was the first to propose the idea of the string theory landscape. Susskind has also made contributions in the following areas of physics:

The independent discovery of the string theory model of particle physics
The theory of quark confinement[16]
The development of Hamiltonian lattice gauge theory[17]
The theory of scaling violations in deep inelastic electroproduction
The theory of symmetry breaking sometimes known as "technicolor theory"[18]
The second, yet independent, theory of cosmological baryogenesis[19] (Sakharov's work was first, but was mostly unknown in the Western hemisphere.)
String theory of black hole entropy[20]
The principle of black hole complementarity[21]
The causal patch hypothesis
The holographic principle[22]
M-theory, including development of the BFSS matrix model [23]
Kogut-Susskind fermions
Introduction of holographic entropy bounds in physical cosmology
The idea of an anthropic string theory landscape[24]
[edit] Development of String Theory
The story goes that "In 1970, a young physicist named Leonard Susskind got stuck in an elevator with Murray Gell-Mann, one of physics' top theoreticians, who asked him what he was working on. Susskind said he was working on a theory that represented particles 'as some kind of elastic string, like a rubber band.' Gell-Mann responded with loud, derisive laughter."[25]

[edit] Books
Susskind is the author of two popular science books, The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design[26] published in 2005, and The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics[27] published in 2008.

[edit] The Cosmic Landscape
Main article: The Cosmic Landscape
The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design is Susskind's first popular science book, published by Little, Brown and Company on December 12, 2005.[26] It is Susskind's attempt to bring his idea of the anthropic landscape of string theory to the general public. In the book, Susskind describes how the string theory landscape was an almost inevitable consequence of several factors, one of which was Steven Weinberg's prediction of the cosmological constant in 1987. The question addressed here is why our universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Susskind explains that Weinberg calculated that if the cosmological constant was just a little larger, our universe would cease to exist.

[edit] The Black Hole War
Main article: Susskind-Hawking battle
The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics is Susskind's second popular science book, published by Little, Brown, and Company on July 7, 2008.[27] The book is his most famous work and explains what he thinks would happen to the information and matter stored in a black hole when it evaporates. The book sparked from a debate that started in 1981, when there was a meeting of physicists to try to decode some of the mysteries about how particles of particular elemental compounds function. During this discussion Stephen Hawking stated that the information inside a black hole is lost forever as the black hole evaporates. It took 28 years for Leonard Susskind to formulate his theory that would prove Hawking wrong. He then published his theory in his book, The Black Hole War. Like The Cosmic Landscape, The Black Hole War is aimed at the lay reader. He writes: "The real tools for understanding the quantum universe are abstract mathematics: infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, projection operators, unitary matrices and a lot of other advanced principles that take a few years to learn. But let's see how we do in just a few pages."

[edit] Lectures
An entire series of courses of lectures on essential theoretical foundations of modern physics by Susskind is available on the iTunes platform from "Stanford on iTunes" [11] and YouTube from "StanfordUniversity's Channel" [12]. These lectures are intended for the general public as well as students. The following courses are available:

[edit] Modern Physics: The Theoretical Minimum
1 Classical Mechanics (Fall 2007) iTunes YouTube
2 Quantum Mechanics (Winter 2008) iTunes YouTube
3 Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory (Spring 2008) iTunes YouTube
4 Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (Fall 2008) iTunes YouTube
5 Cosmology (Winter 2009) iTunes YouTube
6 Statistical Mechanics (Spring 2009) iTunes YouTube
Particle Physics: 1 Basic Concepts (Fall 2009) iTunes YouTube
Particle Physics: 2 Standard Model (Winter 2010) iTunes YouTube
Particle Physics: 3 Supersymmetry, Grand Unification, String Theory (Spring 2010) iTunes
String Theory and M-Theory (Winter 2011) iTunes YouTube
[edit] A separate series of lectures on Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity
Quantum Entanglements Part 1 (Fall 2006) iTunes YouTube
Quantum Entanglements Part 2 (Not available online)
Quantum Entanglements Part 3 (Spring 2007) iTunes YouTube
(Note that some of the lecture names are a little mixed-up: "Quantum Entanglements Part 3" is in fact a lecture series on special relativity, and the order in which the lectures were given is 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 2&3, 8 and 9 (in terms of the numbers given on the videos); There is no mention of string theory in the series "Supersymmetry, Grand Unification, String Theory.")

[edit] Smolin-Susskind Debate
The Smolin-Susskind debate refers to the series of intense postings in 2004 between Lee Smolin and Susskind, concerning Smolin’s argument that the "Anthropic Principle cannot yield any falsifiable predictions, and therefore cannot be a part of science."[28] It began on July 26, 2004, with Smolin's publication of "Scientific alternatives to the anthropic principle". Smolin e-mailed Susskind asking for a comment. Having not had the chance to read the paper, Susskind requested a summarization of his arguments. Smolin obliged, and on July 28, 2004, Susskind responded, saying that the logic Smolin followed "can lead to ridiculous conclusions".[28] The next day, Smolin responded, saying that "If a large body of our colleagues feels comfortable believing a theory that cannot be proved wrong, then the progress of science could get stuck, leading to a situation in which false, but unfalsifiable theories dominate the attention of our field." This was followed by another paper by Susskind which made a few comments about Smolin's theory of "cosmic natural selection".[29] The Smolin-Susskind debate finally ended with each of them agreeing to write a final letter which would be posted on Edge, with three conditions attached: (1) No more than one letter each; (2) Neither sees the other's letter in advance; (3) No changes after the fact.

Although the exchanges ended in 2004, the animosity remains. In 2006, Susskind criticized Smolin as a "mid-level theoretical physicist" whose "popular book-writing activities and the related promotional hustling have given him a platform high above that merited by his physics accomplishments."[30]

[edit] See also
Superstring theory
Quantum chromodynamics
Susskind-Glogower operator
List of theoretical physicists
Kogut-Susskind fermions
Fischler-Susskind mechanism
Boris Pregel
[edit] References
^ a b His 60th birthday was celebrated with a special symposium at Stanford University on May 20–21, 2000.[1]
^ a b Faculty information sheet, Stanford University,, retrieved 2009-09-01 
^ Life in a landscape of possibilities
^ 60 New Members Chosen by Academy, National Academy of Sciences (press release), May 2, 2000,, retrieved 2009-09-01 
^ a b c Leonard Susskind - A Biography (last accessed August 12, 2007).
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ NYAS Publication A Walk Across the Landscape
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ a b c "Leonard Susskind discusses duel with Stephen Hawking", "LA Times", July 26, 2008
^ Welcome To Kias
^ String Theory: The Early Years, John H. Schwarz, 2000
^ L. Susskind, Lattice Models Of Quark Confinement At High Temperature, Phys. Rev. D20 (1979) 2610.
^ J. Kogut and L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. D 11, 395 (1975).
^ Review of Particle Physics, (W.-M. Yao et al., J. Phys. G 33, 1 (2006)) Dynamical Electroweak Symmetry Breaking section cites two 1979 publications, one by Steven Weinberg, the other by L. Susskind to represent the earliest models with technicolor and technifermions.[7]
^ Biography at APS J. J. Sakurai Prize website (last accessed August 12, 2007)
^ L. Susskind, RU-93-44, hep-th/9309145.
^ L. Susskind, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2368 (1993). String theory and the principle of black hole complementarity
^ "The insistence on unitarity in the presence of black holes led 't Hooft (1993) and Susskind (1995b) to embrace a more radical, holographic interpretation of ..." - The Holographic Principle, Raphael Bousso, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 825-874. [8]
^ T. Banks, W. Fischler, S. H. Shenker, and L. Susskind, M Theory as a Matrix Model: A Conjecture, Phys. Rev. D55 (1997) 5112–5128, hep-th/9610043.
^ L. Susskind, arXiv:hep-th/0302219
^ [9]
^ a b L. Susskind (2005), The cosmic landscape: string theory and the illusion of intelligent design, Little, Brown, ISBN 0316155799 
^ a b L. Susskind (2008), The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics, Little, Brown, ISBN 0-316-01640-3  [10]
^ a b Smolin vs. Susskind: The Anthropic Principle, Edge Institute, August 2004,, retrieved 2009-09-01 
^ Leonard Susskind (25 August 2006), Hold fire! This epic vessel has only just set sail..., Times Higher Education,, retrieved 2009-09-01 
[edit] Further reading
Chown, Marcus, "Our world may be a giant hologram", New Scientist, 15 January 2009, magazine issue 2691. "The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant, 2D surface."
[edit] External links
 Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Leonard Susskind
Leonard Susskind's Homepage (Stanford University)
The Edge:
"Interview with Leonard Susskind."
"Smolin vs. Susskind: The Anthropic Principle" Susskind and Lee Smolin debate the Anthropic principle
Radio Interview from This Week in Science March 14, 2006 Broadcast
"Father of String Theory Muses on the Megaverse": Podcast.
Leonard Susskind at the Internet Movie Database
The Cosmic Landscape book discussion at The Commonwealth Club, February 2007
The Black Hole War speaks on black hole conflict at The Commonwealth Club, July 2008
Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman - A Ted talk***
3574  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / scientific american on: June 16, 2011, 07:34:56 PM
Forum | Energy & Sustainability   See Inside A Quick Fix to the Food Crisis
Curbing biofuels should halt price rises

By Timothy Searchinger  | June 16, 2011 | 6
Share Email Print   
Image: John Zoiner Getty Images
When food prices rose steeply in 2007 and climaxed in the winter of 2008, politicians and the press decried the impact on the billion or so people who were already going hungry. Excellent growing weather and good harvests provided temporary relief, but prices have once again soared to record heights. This time around people are paying less attention.

The public has a short attention span regarding problems of the world’s have-nots, but experts are partly to blame, too. Economists have made such a fuss about how complicated the food crisis is that they have created the impression that it has no ready solution, making it seem like one of those intractable problems, like poverty and disease, that are so easy to stash in the back of our minds. This view is wrong.

To be sure, reducing hunger in a world headed toward more than nine billion people by 2050 is a truly complicated challenge that calls for a broad range of solutions. But this is a long-term problem separate from the sudden rise in food prices. High oil prices and a weaker dollar have played some part by driving up production costs, but they cannot come close to explaining why wholesale food prices have doubled since 2004. The current price surge reflects a shortfall in supply to meet demand, which forces consumers to bid against one another to secure their supplies. Soaring farm profits and land values support this explanation. What explains this imbalance?

Crop production has not slowed: total world grain production last year was the third highest in history. Indeed, it has grown since 2004 at rates that, on average, exceed the long-term trend since 1980 and roughly match the trends of the past decade. Even with bad weather in Russia and northern Australia last year, global average crop yields were only 1 percent below what the trends would lead us to expect, a modest gap.

The problem is therefore one of rapidly rising demand. Conventional wisdom points to Asia as the source, but that’s not so. China has contributed somewhat to tighter markets in recent years by importing more soybeans and cutting back on grain exports to build up its stocks, which should serve as a warning to policy makers for the future. But consumption in China and India is rising no faster than it has in previous decades. In general, Asia’s higher incomes have not triggered the surge in demand for food.

That starring role belongs to biofuels. Since 2004 biofuels from crops have almost doubled the rate of growth in global demand for grain and sugar and pushed up the yearly growth in demand for vegetable oil by around 40 percent. Even cassava is edging out other crops in Thailand because China uses it to make ethanol.

Increasing demand for corn, wheat, soybeans, sugar, vegetable oil and cassava competes for limited acres of farmland, at least until farmers have had time to plow up more forest and grassland, which means that tightness in one crop market translates to tightness in others. Overall, global agriculture can keep up with growing demand if the weather is favorable, but even the mildly poor 2010 growing season was enough to force a draw down in stockpiles of grain outside China, which sent total grain stocks to very low levels. Low reserves and rising demand for both food and biofuels create the risk of greater shortfalls in supply and send prices skyward.

Although most experts recognize the important role bio­fuels play, they often underestimate their effects. Many of them misinterpret the economic models, which understate the degree to which biofuels drive up prices. These models are nearly all designed to estimate biofuels’ effects on prices over the long term, after farmers have ample time to plow up and plant more land, and do not speak to prices in the shorter term. Commentators also often lump all sources of crop demand together without recognizing their different moral weights and potential for control. Our primary obligation is to feed the hungry. Biofuels are undermining our ability to do so. Governments can stop the recurring pattern of food crises by backing off their demands for ever more biofuels. 

3575  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / CNN compliments Palin on: June 16, 2011, 07:31:40 PM
Listening to CNN bring up one particular email today as being very interesting.  I thought ok here comes the hit.  Surprise, shock!

Kyra Phillips who is an obvious liberal nanny on the cable nanny network actually discussed the email in a *complementary* fashion.
It shows Palin to be a sensitve thoughtful person.
3576  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 16, 2011, 03:45:10 PM
Well I lived in DC area during the Iran hostage crises and there were thousands of Iranian students in DC at the time.  On one side of the streets they would demonstrate "down with the USA" and the other side of the street Americans would scream back at them.  I was told the engineering building at GW University was "built" with Iranian money.
3577  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / No need for War Powers Act on: June 16, 2011, 02:18:23 PM
In Mark Levin's opinion (and others as noted by Bigdog) this is how Congress should deal with military actions it finds objectionable and not with a Constitution ammenment that was a political move to absolve Democrats for the Vietnam war:
Boehner says House could move to cut off funding for Libya
By Russell Berman - 06/16/11 10:40 AM ET
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on Thursday said the Obama administration failed to answer all his questions about the U.S. mission in Libya and raised the possibility that the House would move to cut off funding for the operation.

In response to demands from the House, the administration released a 32-page report arguing that the Libya mission does not need congressional authorization because the U.S. military engagement there doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

Boehner said that explanation doesn't fly with him.

“The White House says there are no hostilities taking place, yet we’ve got drone attacks under way, we’re spending $10 million a day, [and] part of the mission is to drop bombs on [Libyan dictator Moammar] Gadhafi's compound,” Boehner said. “That doesn’t pass the straight-face test, in my view, that we’re not in the midst of hostilities.”

The Speaker said the White House did not answer one of his questions — outlined in a letter he sent this week — as to whether the Office of Legal Counsel, an advisory entity within the Justice Department, agrees with its analysis of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. He said he wanted an answer to that query by Friday.

White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the president "absolutely respects" Congress's desire to be consulted on Libya, but Carney said that the report should suffice.

"I don't anticipate further elucidation of our legal reasoning because I think it was quite clear," Carney said.

Boehner said the House was considering its options to exert authority over the administration and that next week the chamber “may be prepared to move on those options.”

The “ultimate option,” Boehner said, is that “Congress has the power of the purse” and could cut off funding for the mission. “Certainly that is an option as well,” he said.

3578  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 16, 2011, 11:09:57 AM

Thanks for the post.

Well this same group of Jews are also the ones who are staunch Democrats, down not only Israel,  also the United States, Christianity, capatilism, and at the same time love the concept of big government controlling everything in society and daily life, and are generally marxist, socialist, communist and the rest.  Yet many of these same people love money, live like capatilists, and spend their entire lives making sure they "get their pile" (using a description from George Gilder).

Item number one -> George Soros.

I am proud of being Jewish.  Yet I despise the political thinking, hypocracy, and naricissism of this particular group of Jews.
And I am not afraid to say it.  There are other Jews like me including Horowitz, Goldbergs (Bernie and Jonah), Mason etc who know exactly what I am talking about.
3579  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / China/Vietnam/US/South China Sea on: June 15, 2011, 11:16:02 AM

Vietnam shift could see return of US ships
By Ben Bland in Cam Ranh Bay

Published: June 14 2011 22:46 | Last updated: June 14 2011 22:46

Nguyen Duc De knows at first hand how alliances can change. The former Vietnamese soldier was stationed on the disputed Spratly Islands in the 1980s, when tensions with China were high following their 1979 border war, and he used to take pot shots at the Chinese marines who approached his base, pretending to be fishermen.

When diplomatic relations between the Communist neighbours were restored in the 1990s, shooting was prohibited, he says, but, as China’s economic and military might has grown over the past decade, strains over contested islands in the South China Sea have been on the rise again.

China warns over South China Sea dispute - Jun-14Pilling: Asia’s quiet anger with ‘big, bad’ China - Jun-01Vietnam and China oil clashes intensify - May-29China defends naval actions - Jun-05US warns Beijing over South China Sea - Jun-04In depth: China shapes the world - Apr-25“They’re so big and we’re so small, so what can we do?” asks 50-year-old Mr De, who works as a security guard at a memorial to Vietnamese and Russian soldiers who lost their lives in the Spratly Islands and at the nearby naval and air base at Cam Ranh Bay in south-central Vietnam.

The historic military facility, located within one of Asia’s best natural harbours, is at the centre of a strategic push from Vietnam to counter China’s growing assertiveness over disputed waters in the commercially important South China Sea.

Nestled between soaring mountains and the South China Sea near Nha Trang, a popular resort city in south-central Vietnam, Cam Ranh Bay is one of Asia’s best natural, deepwater harbours.

In the 19th century, French colonial authorities constructed the first modern naval base in the vast bay, which extends for 20 miles north-south and is up to 10 miles wide.

France upgraded the military facilities before Japan invaded Indochina in 1940 and the Japanese then took advantage of the base to launch military sorties.

As the US assistance to the anti-communist southern Vietnamese regime developed into a combat role, the Republic of Vietnam offered Cam Ranh Bay to the US in 1965.

The US handed the base back to the Republic of Vietnam in 1972 under President Richard Nixon’s so-called Vietnamisation programme but communist forces seized the bay in 1975, the year they won the war.

The Soviet Union, a key ally of Vietnam, then pressed for access to the base and in 1979, was given a 25-year lease. The Russians moved out in 2002.

Today, the bay houses Vietnam’s small navy, while the air strip is the main access point for nearby Nha Trang.
Cam Ranh Bay became a potent cold war symbol, first as an American base during the war with Communist North Vietnam, and then as a Soviet base after 1979, hosting nuclear submarines and one of the most important spying stations outside Russia.

When the Russians finally pulled out in 2002, Hanoi vowed never to let any foreign power have control of the facility. But, last year, Nguyen Tan Dung, Vietnam’s prime minister, said he would let foreign naval ships use the base again to dock, resupply and undergo repairs on a commercial basis.

The move may generate some cash once the now crumbling facilities are refurbished, security analysts say. However, the main justification for opening up the bay is to balance China’s naval dominance in the South China Sea, which encompasses key global trade routes, valuable fisheries and is thought to sit atop vast oil and gas reserves.

“Who’s going to take up the offer to visit?” says Carl Thayer, an expert on security in the South China Sea at the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra. “Precisely those navies that China doesn’t want in the South China Sea, including the Americans, Australians, South Koreans and Indians.”

One senior Asian defence official argues that the US will be keenest to take advantage of the opportunity to use the base, which offers great protection from storms and is located close to key commercial shipping lanes and the disputed islands.

“The US has a Pacific fleet and it’s been more aggressive than many other countries in trying to build closer contacts with Vietnam to counter China’s rise,” he says.

The planned reopening of the base to foreign naval vessels is a sign of the shifting global strategic sands, with China’s inexorable rise causing concern among those such as Vietnam and the US, pushing these old enemies closer together.

Although Vietnam has developed deep economic and political ties with its larger northern neighbour since the 1990s, the relationship is coming under pressure because of China’s increasingly aggressive behaviour in the South China Sea, according to Ian Storey, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, who studies maritime security.

China, which recently built a large naval base on Hainan island, to the north of the disputed waters, increasingly has the capability to deploy coercive diplomacy in the South China Sea, says Mr Storey. Recent incidents where Chinese maritime surveillance vessels have tried to sabotage Vietnamese oil exploration ships show Beijing also has the political will to do so.

Hanoi has responded by seeking to internationalise the territorial dispute, calling on other claimants to some of the contested Paracel and Spratly Islands – Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Taiwan – to hold joint talks and attempting to bring in the US as a mediator.

Despite macroeconomic difficulties, Vietnam has boosted its spending on military hardware, agreeing to buy a number of Sukhoi SU-30 jetfighters and six Kilo-class diesel submarines from Russia.

Once delivered in the next year or two, the submarines are expected to be based at Cam Ranh Bay, which analysts say Russia has agreed to refurbish as part of the $2bn contract to supply the craft. Echoing the patriotism of many Vietnamese, Mr De says he does not want to see any foreign forces in the bay.

But changing dynamics of global security mean that, in a twist of fate, American and Russian ships may soon be back at Cam Ranh Bay, this time working alongside each other and the Vietnamese to counterbalance an ever stronger China.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011.
3580  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / "Patriarchal age" on: June 15, 2011, 11:00:03 AM
I've tried to get a better handle on when Abraham lived.  When one looks up his name one gets around 1100 BC.
As per below, "Contemporary archaeologists have given up the attempt to find a historical reality behind the Patriarchs as individuals, and it is now generally accepted that "it is not possible to demonstrate the historical existence of the figures in Genesis."[4]":

***Wikepedia on the Patriarchs:
Patriarchal age
The Patriarchal Age is the era of the three biblical Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, according to the narratives of Genesis 12-50. (These chapters also contain the history of Joseph, although Joseph is not one of the Covenantal Patriarchs).

The bible contains an intricate pattern of chronologies from the creation of Adam, the first man, to the reigns of the later kings of ancient Israel and Judah, at which point the bible makes contact with known and dateable history. From these it is possible to calculate (strictly within a biblical frame of reference) that the birth of Abraham, the first of the Patriarchs, 1,948 years after the Creation, corresponded to 1812 BC.[1]

Prior to the 19th century there was little interest in questioning the biblical chronology, but with the growth of biblical criticism and the wide popularity of the documentary hypothesis - the theory that the Pentateuch, including the Book of Genesis, was composed not by Moses but by unknown authors living at various times between 950 and 450 BC - it became increasingly urgent both to supporters of the traditional view (i.e., that Genesis was an accurate historical record written by Moses under the direct guidance of God) and the new (the documentary hypothesis) to find concrete arguments to support their respective views. Thus was born biblical archaeology, a form of archaeology different from all others in that it sought, not to discover and interpret mute evidence, but to validate (or for some, invalidate) a written book.

The most eminent of early biblical archaeologists was William F. Albright, who believed that he had identified the Patriarchal age in the period 2100-1800 BC, the Intermediate Bronze Age, the interval between two periods of highly developed urban culture in ancient Canaan. Albright argued that he had found evidence of the sudden collapse of the previous Early Bronze Age culture, and ascribed this to the invasion of migratory pastoral nomads from the northeast whom he identified with the Amorites mentioned in Mesopotamian texts. According to Albright, Abraham was a wandering Amorite who migrated from the north into the central highlands of Canaan and the Negev with his flocks and followers as the Canaanite city-states collapsed. Albright, E. A. Speiser and Cyrus Gordon argued that although the texts described by the documentary hypothesis were written centuries after the Patriarchal age, archaeology had shown that they were nevertheless an accurate reflection of the conditions of the 2nd millennium BC: "We can assert with full confidence that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were actual historical individuals."[2]

But in the last quarter of the 20th century Albright's interpretation became increasingly untenable. Archaeology, far from reinforcing the reliability of Genesis, has demonstrated that it is rife with anachronisms. For example, the Philistines whom Abraham encounters did not settle in the Middle East until the 12th century BC, camels were not in general use as beasts of burden until the 7th century BC, and the genealogies of the Patriarchs and the nations supposedly derived from them represent "a colorful human map of the ancient Near East from the unmistakable viewpoint of the kingdom of Israel and the kingdom of Judah in the eighth and seventh centuries BC".[3] Contemporary archaeologists have given up the attempt to find a historical reality behind the Patriarchs as individuals, and it is now generally accepted that "it is not possible to demonstrate the historical existence of the figures in Genesis."[4]

[edit] References
^ The situation is not quite so clear-cut as this implies, as there are variant manuscripts of the bible giving variant chronologies, differing by thousands of years: the description given here is from the Masoretic text, the basis of most modern English translations.
^ John Bright, "History of Israel", 1972, p.91.)
^ Sarah Belle Dougherty, Fiat Lux: Archeology and the Old Testament (review of Finkelstein and Silberman, "The Bible Unearthed", 2003).
^ See review of Terrance Fretheim, "The New Interpreter's Bible", 1994.
Retrieved from ""
Categories: Jewish history***
3581  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / economist jury still out on google on: June 13, 2011, 11:39:52 AM
According to economist the jury is still out on google and oracle:

****IBM's centenary
The test of time
Which of today’s technology giants might still be standing tall a century after their founding?
Jun 9th 2011 | from the print edition
IT IS not, by any means, the world’s oldest company. There are Japanese hotels dating back to the 8th century, German breweries that hail from the 11th and an Italian bank with roots in the 15th. What is unusual about IBM, which celebrates its 100th birthday next week, is that it has been so successful for so long in the fast-moving field of technology. How has it done it?

IBM’s secret is that it is built around an idea that transcends any particular product or technology. Its strategy is to package technology for use by businesses. At first this meant making punch-card tabulators, but IBM moved on to magnetic-tape systems, mainframes, PCs, and most recently services and consulting. Building a company around an idea, rather than a specific technology, makes it easier to adapt when industry “platform shifts” occur (see article).

True, IBM’s longevity is also due, in part, to dumb luck. It almost came unstuck early on because its bosses were hesitant to abandon punch cards. And it had a near-death experience in 1993 before Lou Gerstner realised that the best way to package technology for use by businesses was to focus on services. An elegant organising idea is no use if a company cannot come up with good products or services, or if it has clueless bosses. But on the basis of this simple formula—that a company should focus on an idea, rather than a technology—which of today’s young tech giants look best placed to live to 100?

The most obvious example is Apple (founded in 1976). Like IBM, it had a near-death experience in the 1990s, and it is dangerously dependent on its founder, Steve Jobs. But it has a powerful organising idea: take the latest technology, package it in a simple, elegant form and sell it at a premium price. Apple has done this with personal computers, music players, smartphones and tablet computers, and is now moving into cloud-based services (see article). Each time it has grabbed an existing technology and produced an easier-to-use and prettier version than anyone else. This approach can be applied to whatever technology is flavour of the month: Apple has already shifted from PCs to mobile devices.

The animating idea of Amazon (founded in 1994) is to make it easy for people to buy stuff. It began by doing this for books, but has since applied the same idea to other products: music, groceries, mobile apps, even computing power and storage, which it sells on tap. The Kindle may resemble an e-reader, but it is just as much a portable bookstore. As new things come along, Amazon will make it easy for you to buy them. Similarly, the aim of Facebook (2004) is to help people share stuff with friends easily. This idea can be extended to almost anything on almost any platform.

Consider, by contrast, three product-based firms. Dell (founded in 1984) made its name building PCs more efficiently than anyone else and selling them direct to consumers. That model does not neatly transfer to other products. Cisco Systems (also 1984) makes internet routers. It has diversified into other areas, such as videoconferencing, but chiefly because it thought this would increase demand for routers. Microsoft (1975) is hugely dependent on Windows, which is its answer to everything. But software for a PC may not be the best choice to run inside a phone or a car. All these firms are wedded to specific products, not deeper philosophies, and are having trouble navigating technological shifts.

Other giants are still struggling to move beyond their core technologies. Oracle (1977) was originally a database company, which peddled databases as the answer to all its clients’ problems. But in the past decade it has moved into other corporate software, and hardware too. Now it aims to provide entire computing systems. Google (1998) knows the importance of an idea. “Organising the world’s information and making it universally accessible” is its motto, and it is putting that into practice on mobile devices through its Android software, which is spreading fast. But Google is still heavily dependent on a single product—internet search and related advertising.

Good to be elegant, better to be old

The upshot: Apple, Amazon and Facebook look like good long-term bets. Dell, Cisco and Microsoft do not. The jury is out on Oracle and Google. See you in 2111—provided, that is, that The Economist (founded in 1843, with the idea of explaining the world to its readers) is still around too.****
3582  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / economist article on tech on: June 13, 2011, 11:36:10 AM
According to Schmidt it is google, facebook, apple and amazon:

Middle-aged blues
The software giant is grappling with a mid-life crisis
Jun 9th 2011 | SAN FRANCISCO | from the print edition
COMPARED with IBM, Microsoft is a mere stripling. Founded in 1975, it rose swiftly to dominate the world of personal computing with its Windows operating system and Office suite of word-processing and other productivity tools. But the company is now showing some worrying signs of middle-age fatigue. In particular, it is struggling to find a growth strategy that will enthuse disgruntled shareholders.

Grumbles are understandable. Since Steve Ballmer took over from Bill Gates as chief executive in 2000, Microsoft’s share price has languished and the company has lost its reputation as a tech trend-setter. It has been left behind in hot areas such as search and social networking by younger companies, some of which love to thumb their noses at their older rival. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, recently proclaimed that leadership in the tech world had passed from Microsoft and others to a “Gang of Four” fast-growing, consumer-oriented businesses: Google, Apple, Amazon and Facebook.

Few would quibble with that. The question is: what, if anything, can Microsoft do to change it? In at least some respects, the company appears to be suffering from similar ailments to those that laid IBM low before Lou Gerstner was hired in 1993 to get it back on its feet. These include arrogance bred of dominance of a particular area—mainframe computers at IBM, personal computers at Microsoft—and internal fiefs that hamper swift change. For instance, the division that champions cloud computing must deal with one that is the cheerleader for Windows, which is likely to want computing to stay on desktops for as long as possible to maximise its own revenues.

Related topics
As IBM’s experience shows, rejuvenation in the tech world is possible. And some observers see encouraging glimmers of progress at Microsoft. Sarah Rotman Epps of Forrester, a research firm, reckons that Windows 8, a forthcoming version of Microsoft’s operating system, could be a serious competitor to Google’s Android on tablet computers if the company can get it to market next year. Microsoft is also in far better shape financially than IBM was at its nadir, so it can afford to splash out on acquisitions such as its recent $8.5 billion purchase of Skype, an internet-phone and video-calling service.

That bet and an alliance with Nokia in mobile phones (putting the phone version of Windows into the big but troubled Finnish firm’s devices) show that Microsoft is trying to bulk up in promising areas. Yet sceptics worry that such initiatives are not the product of an overarching strategic vision, but are instead tactical moves designed to placate critics who fear Microsoft is drifting downwards. David Einhorn, a prominent hedge-fund manager whose fund holds shares in Microsoft, has publicly called for a change at the top of the firm, arguing that Mr Ballmer is “stuck in the past”. So far, the company’s board, chaired by Mr Gates, has backed its chief executive. But if IBM’s history is a guide, Microsoft may yet end up jettisoning its leader.****

3583  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, budget process on: June 13, 2011, 11:04:52 AM
IMO this is another example of government perks that is distinctly unfair.  States giving the film industry tax breaks that no one else gets.  Yes I understand the upside down reasoning that the idea was to bring business, recognition and money into a targeted area that would benefit the entire state.  Nonetheless this is government meddling, this is unfair tax code manipulation that benefits peopel who do not need the benefit while smaller bussinesses and tax payers get stuck with the burden far more than any benefit to them.  I would like to hear Repubs address this crap.  Newt has a point when he notes "conservative social engineering".  I believe this is a perfect example of what he is saying.  Stossel could have a field day on this:

After a decade of escalation, a stupid trend may have peaked
Jun 9th 2011 | LOS ANGELES | from the print edition
Lights, cameras, subsidies, action!LOTS of states would love to be California and have their own little Hollywood. Film crews would then come to town and spend money in hair salons and hotels, and local politicians could pose with film stars. So why not call it “economic development” to justify the huge tax credits that lure film producers? As of last year, more than 40 states had such incentives, costing them a record $1.4 billion.

Even California itself plays the game, believing that it has to defend itself against the poachers. In 2003, when only a handful of states (principally Louisiana and New Mexico) offered incentives, California made two-thirds of America’s big-studio films. Now it makes far fewer than half. Film LA, an organisation that co-ordinates permits for film shoots in Los Angeles, says that without California’s own tax credit, “2010 would have been the worst year” since the mid-1990s for filming in Hollywood. As its marketing blog gibes: “It is extraordinarily unlikely that the 137 productions that filmed in Michigan since 2007 chose to shoot there for creative reasons, a favourable climate or a deep and talented film-crew base.”

All this costs money, which legislators volunteer on behalf of taxpayers. Many tax credits (a percentage of a film crew’s local expenditures) exceed the filmmaker’s total tax liability to that state. The credits have even become an industry unto themselves: brokers slice them into tranches and trade them. In Iowa filmmakers were selling their credits until that state shut its programme in 2009. Last month an Iowa judge sentenced a producer to ten years in prison for fiddling credits.

Related topics
Arts, entertainment and media
Incentives do not have to involve tax credits. Some states simplify the paperwork by just giving out cash (calling it “rebates” or “grants”). Others exempt film-makers from sales or hotel taxes or give them other perks.

All this is silly. First, as Joseph Henchman at the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan think-tank, puts it, even when a state succeeds in luring film crews, they rarely boost the economy or tax revenues enough to justify the costs of the incentives. Film companies usually import their staff (stars, stuntmen, etc) and export them again when the shoot is over. The local jobs they create (hairdressers, sound technicians, pizza deliverers) are mostly temporary.

Second, since virtually all states are at it, the programmes largely cancel out one another; no state gets a lasting advantage. The craze resembles a beggar-thy-neighbour trade war (with mutually destructive tariffs) or the federal tax code with its loopholes for every lobby and thus higher rates for all. In the language of cold-war nukes, it would be mutually assured destruction (MAD). The only winner is the film industry. In essence, a rich bloke in a Brentwood villa gets money from a poor taxpayer in West Virginia.

Fortunately, this has begun sinking in. Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, New Jersey and Washington have recently ended, suspended or shrunk their programmes. Many others, struggling with budget deficits, are considering doing the same, investing the money in something permanent or even leaving it to taxpayers. “2010 will likely stand as the peak year,” thinks Mr Henchman.
3584  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 11, 2011, 04:42:08 PM

You mean ala Charles Rangel or Bill Clinton?

There is a history of Democratic voters supporting these people.

They don't seem to care.
3585  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 11, 2011, 04:15:24 PM
I see Pelosi came out today with her opinion Weiner should resign.

FWIW whether or not it was a political desicion it really is the right thing to do.
3586  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / question Palin - heroic "accomplishment" on: June 11, 2011, 10:50:51 AM
Question Bamster and you are a nut:

" Regardless of whether you thought the Palin email trove was a waste of time like many, or were obsessively live-blogging the events like us, you can't deny that the massive scanning and crowdsourcing of document review by major news outlets was a tremendous accomplishment."

Compare the above assesment to the MSM reports about the release of Bamster's long form birth certificate (if real).   That the poor man was subjected to unbearable disrespect, and harm because a bunch of crazy right wing radical loony birds "forced" him to do this painful thing.  and of course there is always the implication this was DONE TO HIM because he is half Black.

***The Top Ten Revelations from the Sarah Palin Emails
At 8:37 a.m. Saturday morning, the New York Times tweeted "After scanning marathon, all 24,000 #palinemail documents are in our searchable, interactive viewer." Regardless of whether you thought the Palin email trove was a waste of time like many, or were obsessively live-blogging the events like us, you can't deny that the massive scanning and crowdsourcing of document review by major news outlets was a tremendous accomplishment. While revelations from the cache may continue to trickle in over the weekend, at this point the bulk of the emails have been combed through, and this is what we now know about Palin that we didn't (necessarily) know before.

Related: Harry Reid and Sarah Palin Bicker Over Cowboy Poetry

Palin "joked" with George W. Bush about becoming Vice-President.

Related: Palin Accuses Obama of 'Pussy-Footing Around' Bin Laden Photos

Only a month before Palin was picked by John McCain as a running mate, she spoke with then-president George W. Bush, where she admitted to being unable to take a Vice Presidential position seriously. "The Pres [George Bush] and I spoke about military. He also spoke about (and we joked about) VP buzz."

Related: Palin Coincidentally Finds Key Primary States on Bus Tour

In fact, a mere two days before she was picked as Vice President, Palin was willing to help change signs at an Anchorage gas station to show lower prices. But unprepared though Palin was, Politico notes that she was soon forwarding encouraging notes to her staff from fans about the vice presidency.
One supporter of Palin’s from South Dakota wrote to a publicly listed e-mail address that was then forwarded to her official e-mail in late June that Palin would make “a first-rate running mater for Senator John McCain.”

“Please encourage her to accept if asked!” the supporter wrote. “What can we do to encourage Senator McCain to put her on the ticket?”

McCain's decision process took a matter of days.

Related: Sarah Palin Is Definitely Not Done Whining About the Press

It was not until Aug. 24 that there was any serious indication Palin might be be Vice President. That was when she asked her office in Juneau to send two years of her financial disclosure forms to Anchorage for unspecified purposes. The New York Times notes that "as many asserted at the time, the vetting process of the vice-presidential candidate appears to have taken just a few scant days."

Related: Condé Nast Office Politics; Bono Pushes Spidey

In late August, when McCain's choice was announced, Palin wrote “Can you believe it!” in response to a staff member. “He told me yesterday — it moved fast! Pray! I love you.”

She was once an Obama fan.

On August 4, 2008, Palin praised a speech given by President Obama as "great" and noted he "stole" some Alaskan ideas. "He did say 'yay' to our gasline. Pretty cool. Wrong candidate," Palin wrote.

She has never had much time to read the news.

Katie Couric's infamous interview with Palin, where the then-governor struggled to explain her media diet, may not have been the "gotcha" interview Palin later asserted it to be. It seems she really didn't have time to read the news, even to correct misinformation. By her own admission, her plate was too full. In one e-mail in February 2007, Palin wrote:

"i will try to carve out time in the day to more fully scan news clippings and try to catch some of the talk shows via internet, but so far I haven’t even found an extra minute to be able to tune into the shows unless I’m . . . driving in my car... i need folks to really help ramp up accurate counter comments to the misinformation that’s being spread out there.”

Palin asked God for guidance on the budget.

"I have been praying for wisdom on this ... God will have to show me what to do on the people's budget because I don't yet know the right path ... He will show me though."

She was intimidated by Alaskan Congressman Rep. Don Young.

In September 2008, a staffer e-mailed Palin that Young was trying to reach her. She replied: "Please find out what it's about. I don't want to get chewed out by him again. I'm not up for that."

Palin has always had a troubled relationship with the press.

Palin has always both courted and complained about the press. Her love-hate relationship is nothing new. On January 28, 2007, she disputed a report from the Anchorage Daily News that she'd put a "ban" on staffers talking to reporters. "I have NEVER banned any of our team members from voicing opinions on anything, she wrote. "I've asked that you all share your opinions, speak freely to press, public, legislators, one another, etc."she wrote to a staff member, “The double standard we face in so many areas is almost comical.” But she also vented that she was being criticized for speaking out, “The double standard we face in so many areas is almost comical,” she wrote to a staff member.

Palin ghostwrote a letter to the editor of the Alaska Daily News.

An email from July 2008 suggests that Palin ghost-wrote a letter to the editor of the Alaska Daily News that was to be sent under the name of a supporter. A critic had written to the Daily News about Palin's no-show at the 2008 Miss Alaska Pageant, and Palin wanted to "someone to corrct the letter writer's goofy comments, but don't want the letter in response to ADN to come from me." She drafted a letter and had her staff member sign it under the name of "Kristan Cole."

The rumor that Trig Palin is Bristol's son has been going on for a while.

Guardian uncovers the following quote from Palin

Hate to pick this one up again, but have heard three different times today the rumor again the Bristol is pregnant or had this baby. Even at Trig's doc appt this morning his doc said that's out there (hopefully NOT in their medical community-world, but it's out there). Bristol called again this afternoon asking if there's anything we can do to stop this as she receive two girlfriend-type calls today asking if it were true.
Palin has remained firm on Troopergate from the beginning.

On July 27, 2008, Palin's supporter Debbie Joslin sent a her saying that "If you did fire WM (Walt Monegan) in part or in whole because of the brother in law, just admit it and make it right. Hire him back if that makes sense and even if it doesn’t, just say you are sorry you let personal feelings get in the way and move on. People will forgive you." But Palin reponded, “I hope you’ll trust me that I’d be the first to admit if I made a mistake two weeks ago in offering Walt a different job aside from Commissioner...No personal feelings ever influenced my recognition."

Two days later, on July 29, she wrote again, “I prefer speaking to these reporters who want comments on the issue, I invite the investigation but it's obvious we could get to the bottom of it all if leggies and reproters would just ASK me further questions instead of spending $100g on a fishing expiditoin” 

In a later email she expressed increasing frustration:

"I do applogize if I sound frustrated w this one. I guess I am. Its killing me to realise how misinformed leggies, reporters and others are on this issue. The accusations and false assumptions are mind boggling.
"He's still a trooper, and he still carries a gun, and he still tells anyone who will listen that he will 'never work for that b*itch' (me) because he has such anger and distain towards family. So consistency is needed here. No one's above the law. If the law needs to be changed to not allow access to guns for people threatening to kill someone, it must apply to everyone."****
3587  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 11, 2011, 10:16:21 AM
A crat is a crat is a crat is a crat.  Not surprising.  Weiner puts himself above all else.  The Dems put party above the country.
And the crats who vote all want the free benefits confiscated from taxpayers.  I don't know hwy people like my nephew bother to fight for our country.  Even our leaders are a bunch of selfish pigs.

Pelosi declines to call for Weiner's resignation
 ShareretweetEmailPrint– Fri Jun 10, 7:07 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Amid increasing calls for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi says the decision should be up to the congressman and his New York constituents.

The former speaker said in San Francisco that she believes the decision should be made by "the individual member" and the people in his district.

Weiner, a seven-term Democrat, has admitted sending sexually explicit photos and messages over the Internet to a half dozen women over the past three years. Pelosi has asked the House Ethics Committee to investigate whether Weiner used any government resources.

Weiner told a newspaper Thursday he would not resign. At least nine House members and three senators said he should quit.

Two former Democratic Party chairmen also said he should resign.

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Weiner did pick up support from Rep. Charles Rangel, a New York Democrat who was censured by the House last year for ethics violations.

Rangel suggested that other members of Congress had done things more immoral than Weiner.

Rangel said Weiner "wasn't going with prostitutes. He wasn't going out with little boys."

In a recent poll of registered voters in Weiner's district, 56 percent said he should stay in office while 33 percent said he should leave.

3588  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / G Will on Hunstman on: June 10, 2011, 03:02:36 PM
Jon Huntsman's thorny path to the GOP nomination

By George Will | Donald Trump’s pathological political exhibitionism has ended, Newt Gingrich has incinerated himself with an incoherent retraction tour, Mitt Romney has reaffirmed his enthusiasm for his Massachusetts health-care law, rendering himself incapable of articulating the case against Obamacare and the entitlement state generally, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels, aware of the axiom that anyone who will do what must be done to become president should not be allowed to be president, are out.

Watching this from his new home in Washington’s tony Kalorama neighborhood and his office at 1455 Pennsylvania Ave., Jon Huntsman, 51, former Utah governor and recently resigned ambassador to China, contemplates moving his office two blocks west. The Republican contest may soon acquire a photogenic family and a distinctive foreign policy voice.

The independently wealthy Huntsmans have seven children, among them two adopted daughters from China and India, and a son at Annapolis aspiring to be a Navy SEAL. Huntsman’s economic policies are Republican orthodoxy. His national security policies may make him the neoconservatives’ nightmare but a welcome novelty for a larger constituency.

“Capital is a coward,” Huntsman says, meaning capital is rational — it flees risky environments, which Obama administration policies create. He favors tax reform to stimulate capital formation, including a corporate tax rate of 24 percent or lower. He thinks lower but more inclusive income tax rates would be good economics — and good civics, reducing the share of households (47 percent in 2009) that pay no income taxes. At first saying Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget “is worthy of consideration” and later endorsing it, he says: “If you’re frightened of Ryan’s road map, you have not looked at our accumulating debt.”


  Every weekday publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.
Speaking in Washington this month, he will explain the need to “clean up the map” of foreign policy. He is among the sizable American majority disturbed that there is no discernible winning outcome in, or exit strategy from, Afghanistan, where, he says, there is now, and will be when we leave, a civil war that need not greatly concern us.

He believes significant savings can be found in the process of making the defense budget congruent with more judicious uses of U.S. military assets. This means more reliance on special operations, fewer interventions requiring large deployments — and no absent-minded interventions like that in Libya.

How will the Republican nominating electorate, preoccupied with questions about domestic policy and the role of government, respond to a candidate stressing national security and those national security positions? Huntsman replies: “I don’t know, but we’re about to find out.”

With one of his 2012 rivals, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Huntsman co-chaired John McCain’s 2008 campaign, from which he has drawn key advisers. Like McCain, Huntsman will bypass Iowa. “I don’t like subsidies,” he says, so he opposes the Church of Ethanol, the established religion out “where the tall corn grows.” New Hampshire, however, he says, “likes margin-of-error candidates with a message.” In South Carolina, his cadre of supporters includes Mike Campbell, Huckabee’s 2008 state chairman. Huntsman hopes for a respectable showing in Michigan, and he will also focus on Florida, where his wife is from and his campaign headquarters will be, in Orlando.

If Barack Obama wins a second term, this will be the first time there have been three consecutive two-term presidencies since Jefferson, Madison and Monroe between 1801 and 1825. The Republican nominee will be chosen by a relatively small cohort consisting of those Americans most determined that this not happen. Nominating electorates make up in intensity what they lack in size. They pay close attention to presidential politics early, and participate in cold-weather events, because they have a heat fueled by ideology. Cool-hand Huntsman, with his polished persona and the complementary fluencies of a governor and a diplomat, might find those virtues are, if not defects, of secondary importance in the competition to enkindle Republicans eager to feast on rhetorical red meat.

So it is difficult to chart Huntsman’s path to the Republicans’ Tampa convention through a nominating electorate that is understandably furious about Obama’s demonstrably imprudent and constitutionally dubious domestic policies. Even if that electorate approves Huntsman’s un-Obamalike health-care reforms in Utah and forgives his flirtation with a fanciful climate-change regime among Western states, he faces the worthy but daunting challenge of bringing Tea Party Republicans — disproportionately important in the nominating process — to a boil about foreign policy.

3589  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 10, 2011, 02:49:16 PM
Remember how Clinton refused to release his urology records.  The ones that documented his crooked penis?

Maybe Bamster's is crooked too - like his politics.  Or he doesn't want anyone to know his past treatments for drugs,, or STDs???
3590  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 10, 2011, 02:45:42 PM
"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"

I am certainly no scholar on the downfall of "empires" but isn't this one theory as to why Rome and other empires fell?
3591  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 10, 2011, 02:42:46 PM
"As for Obama, what other President ever had to release his long form birth certificate?"

Except for McCain I am not sure the issue was ever raised or for that matter was in question before.  If it was I would think ANYONE else who had nothing to hide would have rapidly released the document.

And what do you mean ever had to release...

Like it was such a big F. deal???  What was so difficult about doing this?

What an ordeal it was.  What the fringe right loons put the Bamster thru, huh?  Worse than warter boarding.
3592  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 10, 2011, 02:25:40 PM
"On Saturday, Former President Bill Clinton will officiate the wedding of Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner"

Unbelievable.  Reports were that Weiner called BJ Clinton to apologize.

With leaders like these guys....

They will probably all be getting bjs from the bride's maids.

Of course, so what.  rolleyes That is their "personal" not "professional" behavior which is another 'distinction' the libs are all coming out with now.
3593  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The congnitive dissonance of the left on: June 10, 2011, 12:25:33 PM
How did we get to the point where it is acceptable for politicians to lie because "they all do it" let alone reckless sexual activities, outright pulbic lying coverups, and the rest?  This country really is in big decline culturally and morally and that bodes poorly for everything else IMHO.

It seems anything is acceptable as long as the pol in office will keep the money spigget flowing doles to their constituents.  What twisted logic can be dreamed of next:

****Matthews: Weiner in Trouble Because His Behavior Offends 'Culturally Backward' Christian Conservatives
By Geoffrey Dickens | June 10, 2011 | 11:40

On Thursday's Hardball, Chris Matthews determined that Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner could be in danger of being forced out of Congress by Blue Dog Dems who face uphill battles in red states because, as he put it, "people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want...don't like this kind of stuff."

During a discussion about Weiner's chances of survival, after being caught sending lewd pictures to women via Twitter, the MSNBCer claimed the liberal congressman didn't have to worry about his, according to Matthews, culturally superior constituents in New York - the "56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens" who "can live with this guy." Instead he had to be concerned with his Democratic colleagues fearful about re-election in the "conservative culturally part of the country."

The following excerpt was aired on the June 9 edition of Hardball:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: If you're a Blue Dog Democrat from a conservative culturally part of the country, where you're fighting out every election with two or three points to spare, if you're a -- if you're are [Jim] Matheson from Utah or you're from Oklahoma and you're a [Dan] Boren -- and he's leaving Congress - your life's getting difficult enough defending the East Coast and the left coast Democratic Party. They're too far left. Look at what happened in Arkansas last year. It's getting very, very hard to defend the behavior, politically, of the party. Now you throw on top of that immoral behavior, indiscrete behavior, embarrassing behavior, gross behavior like this, and you still have him in your midst. And that's my question to you. If you're Steny Hoyer, who does speak for the Blue Dogs, if you're Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker, who has to deal with them, don't you have to deal with the fact - you're losing any chance of getting back a 218 majority?

I want you to pick this up, Ben. This is, to me, the stakes here. If he stays, they never get the leadership back. They never get the Speakership back because the people in the rural areas of this country who are Christian conservative culturally - you can say backward if you want - but they don't like this kind of stuff at all. They're not part of that 56 percent in Brooklyn and Queens who say, "okay, we can live with this guy." Your thoughts, Ben? Isn't that the cutting edge of this?****

3594  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The left covering for Bamster as always on: June 10, 2011, 12:04:12 PM
"one is public information, one is not"

JDN thank you.  I knew this would be the response of the left.

One is also an active President of the United States and by golly we have every right to know what his school essays were as well as running around with his Panama hat snorting cocaine. 

The other one is a citizen who is no longer an elected official though she certainly is a political figure and may run for office at some point.

"She took three years to merely release simple public records."

Oh, well who does that remind you of?  How long did it take the Bamster to release a copy of his long form (if real) despite it being a valid constitutional issue worthy of a real reponse?

And what is he hiding about his past poltical affiliations that is such a secret?
3595  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: June 10, 2011, 10:01:19 AM
This of course is ok.

But demanding any writing form Obama while a student is of course labeled as idiocy.

We mocked if we demand to see the long form of his birth certificate (which some wonder is a fraud), we are ignored if we want to see his thesis etc.

3596  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / poll manipulation on: June 09, 2011, 02:20:33 PM
After the shock poll showed Romney even with the Bamster I said to myself any day we will suddenly see another poll that attempts to show the first poll was all wrong.  Without fail the MSM comes out with a response poll that has opposite results always in Bamster's favor.  Despite another dip in the economy this poll suggests Bamster is untouchable.  All I can say is thank God, again, for Fox and talk radio or we would be led to believe Bamster is perfect and adored by everyone person in the world except those on this board:

Reuters – President Barack Obama (R) and first lady Michelle Obama (L) walk out to greet German Chancellor Angela … By John Whitesides John Whitesides – Wed Jun 8, 1:58 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama retains a big lead over possible Republican rivals in the 2012 election despite anxiety about the economy and the country's future, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Wednesday.

Obama's approval rating inched up 1 percentage point from May to 50 percent but the number of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track also rose as pricier gasoline, persistently high unemployment and a weak housing market chipped away at public confidence.

Obama leads all potential Republican challengers by double-digit margins, the poll showed. He is ahead of his closest Republican rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, by 13 percentage points -- 51 percent to 38 percent.

"Obama's position has gotten a little stronger over the last couple of months as the public mood has evened out, and as an incumbent he has some big advantages over his rivals," Ipsos pollster Cliff Young said.

"Until Republicans go through a primary season and select a nominee, they are going to be at a disadvantage in the head-to-head matchups in name recognition."

[ For complete coverage of politics and policy, go to Yahoo! Politics ]

Obama, who got a boost in the polls last month with the killing of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, is amassing an election campaign warchest likely to be larger than the record $750 million he raised in 2008.

Sarah Palin and Romney lead the Republicans battling for the right to challenge Obama in the November 2012 election.

Palin, the party's vice presidential nominee in 2008, had the support of 22 percent of the Republicans surveyed. The former governor of Alaska has not said whether she will run for president next year.

Romney, who failed in a 2008 presidential bid, had 20 percent support.

Representative Ron Paul, a libertarian Republican from Texas, and former pizza executive Herman Cain were tied for third with 7 percent each.


The Republican candidates are just starting to engage in their slow-starting nomination race. Young said Palin and Romney had a clear advantage at this stage over other challengers in name recognition among voters.

Other surveys have shown Romney in a stronger position. A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this week gave Romney a slight lead over Obama among registered voters.

In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, the other Republican contenders fared even worse than Romney's 13-point gap in a match-up with Obama. Palin trailed Obama by 23 points and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was behind by 19 points.

The survey was taken after weak jobs and housing figures released last week showed the U.S. economy is recovering slower than expected. Unemployment rose slightly to 9.1 percent for the month.

The poll found 60 percent of respondents said the country is on the wrong track, up from 56 percent in May but still below April's high of 69 percent. In the latest survey, 35 percent said the country is going in the right direction.

Obama's approval rating has drifted in a narrow range between 49 percent and 51 percent since January, with the exception of April when the first spike in gasoline prices drove his rating lower.

With Congress battling over a Republican budget plan that includes scaling back the federal Medicare health program for the elderly, the poll found a plurality of Americans, 43 percent, oppose the Medicare cuts and 37 percent support them.

The poll, conducted Friday through Monday, surveyed 1,132 adults nationwide by telephone, including 948 registered voters. The margin of error is 3 percentage points.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
3597  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: US Economics, the stock market , and other investment/savings strategies on: June 08, 2011, 08:42:20 PM
Thanks, DMG and Crafty
3598  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: June 07, 2011, 02:31:16 PM
Accomodation, or appeasement, whatever one wants to call it - giving in to the demand to go back to '67 borders.
I get Freidman's arguments. 
By doing what he calls accomodation he feels Israel can then say look we have given in to all requests and if Palestinians still don't accept our right to exist than the honus is on them.

"But Israel has a superb countermove: accept some variation of the 1967 borders and force Hamas either to break with its principles and lose its support to an emergent group or openly blow apart the process. In other words, the Israelis can also pursue a strategy of provocation, in this case by giving the Palestinians what they want and betting that they will reject it. Of course, the problem with this strategy is that the Palestinians might accept the deal, with Hamas secretly intending to resume the war from a better position.

Israel’s bet has three possible outcomes. One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel. The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton. The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders.

In the first part of this he assumes that Israel can use a "superb countermove by accepting some version of /67 borders and that this will put all of the pressure on the Arabs. 

My question is how do we know this and why is he so sure this will stop the pressure on the Jews?

"One is to hold the current position and be constantly manipulated into actions that isolate Israel."

Well if the US is going to abandom them aka Obama....

"The second is to accept the concept of the 1967 borders and bet on the Palestinians rejecting it as they did with Bill Clinton."

In that case we have already gone down that road.  What makes anyone think it will be different now?

"The third outcome, a dangerous one, is for the Palestinians to accept the deal and then double-cross the Israelis. But then if that happens, Israel has the alternative to return to the old borders."

That is if the Israelis are not wiped out first.

If I were Netenyahu I would not give in till there is another US President.  He cannot count on Bama.
If the US had a President (as well as both houses) who really would be committed to helping Israel in an existential crises, and the Israelis went back to close the '67 borders as they could reasonably do safely and with a timetable by which Arabs have to commit and recognize the right of a Jewish state then maybe this would be a way to go.

3599  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / please see my reply under consitutional matters on: June 07, 2011, 01:54:59 PM
on an opinion of the war power act's constitutionality.
3600  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / War Powers Act itself is considered unconstitutional on: June 07, 2011, 01:53:44 PM
Some, including constitutional attorney Mark Levin consider the War Powers act unconstitutional.  Listening to Mark Levin discuss this issue he points out every President has acted without the permission of Congress and for national security reasons this was the way the founders wanted it.  If congress later decided the military action was wrong they could simply "defund" it.  In his opinion Ron Paul doesn't have the faintest clue what he is talking about.  I agree:

It Growing GOP Opposition to Presidential War Powers? →Thomas Woods vs. Mark Levin On Presidential War Powers
Posted on March 27, 2011 by Chad
Mark Levin has apparently jumped into the fray over  presidential war powers.  It’s been a hot topic of debate lately, thanks to  Obama’s  involvement in Libya. As you may have guessed, Levin favors presidential power to authorize military action- without consulting congress.  To be fair, Levin is not alone in his view.   Thomas Woods takes apart Levin’s argument in a recent article. You can read the whole thing here.  It’s an excellent read.  One particular part stands out where he quotes Levin as saying:

The constitutional convention was “never going to give war-making power to Congress.”

“You think my view is odd? Well that’s funny, because every single president of the United States has embraced this view—very damn one of em’, from Reagan to Obama.”

Woods’ response is great:

Yes, it is simply unthinkable that the two political parties could both defy the Constitution in the same way for 30 whole years.  I mean, we have no precedent for such a thing elsewhere in government, where both parties have scrupulously observed constitutional limits for decades and decades.

Some of you are fans of Mark Levin I’m sure.  I have nothing against him personally, but am concerned by what he represents. He’s part of  a growing number of political pundits on both sides of the aisle who have spent time working in Washington D.C.

Mark Levin   is a lawyer who once worked in Washington in a president’s administration.   Having spent a significant portion of his career working under a very popular  president, can we really expect Levin (and the many others like him in BOTH PARTIES) to distrust presidential authority?
Pages: 1 ... 70 71 [72] 73 74 ... 113
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!